2179
1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
2
3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
4 Volume 9
5
6 Including List of Participants
7
8
9
10 Hearing
11
12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project
13
14 Presiding:
15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair
16 Kathi Kinew
17 Harvey Nepinak
18 Robert Mayer
19 Terry Sargeant
20
21 Wednesday, March 17, 2004
22 Radisson Hotel
23 288 Portage Avenue
24 Winnipeg, Manitoba
25
2180
1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
2
3 Clean Environment Commission:
4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman
5 Terry Sargeant Member
6 Harvey Nepinak Member
7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member
8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission
9 Rory Grewar Staff
10 CEC Advisors:
11 Mel Falk
12 Dave Farlinger
13 Jack Scriven
14 Jim Sandison
15 Jean McClellan
16 Brent McLean
17 Kyla Gibson
18
19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation:
20 Chief Jerry Primrose
21 Elvis Thomas
22 Campbell MacInnes
23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux
24
25
2181
1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
2
3 Manitoba Conservation:
4 Larry Strachan
5
6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN:
7 Doug Bedford, Counsel
8 Bob Adkins, Counsel
9 Marvin Shaffer
10 Ed Wojczynski
11 Ken Adams
12 Carolyn Wray
13 Ron Mazur
14 Lloyd Kuczek
15 Cam Osler
16 Stuart Davies
17 David Hicks
18 George Rempel
19 David Cormie
20 Alex Fleming
21 Marvin Shaffer
22
23 Community Association of South Indian Lake:
24 Leslie Dysart
25 Merrell-Ann Phare
2182
1
2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
3 CAC/MSOS:
4 Byron Williams
5
6 Canadian Nature Federation/Manitoba Wildlands:
7 Eamon Murphy
8 Gaile Whelan Enns
9 Brian Hart
10
11 Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource Conservation Man:
12 Peter Miller
13 Ralph Torrie
14
15 Trapline 18:
16 Greg McIvor
17
18 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake:
19 Dennis Troniak
20 Joshua Flett
21 Frank Moore
22
23 Justice Seekers of Nelson House:
24 Carol Kobliski
25
2183
1 List of Participants
2
3 Pimicikamak Cree Nation:
4 Kate Kempton
5 William Osborne
6
7 Environment Approvals (Manitoba Justice):
8 Stu Pierce
9
10 Presenters:
11 Billy Moore - Private
12 Bill Turner - MIPUG
13 Caroline Bruyere - Private
14 Grand Chief Margaret Swan - Southern Chiefs
15 Gordon Wapaskokimaw
16 Rob Hillard - Manitoba Federation of Labour
17 Jim Murphy - Operating Engineers of Manitoba
18 Scott Kidd - Private
19 Allan Ciekiewicz - Private
20
21
22
23
24
25
2184
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
3 Number Page
4
5 DRSIL 1000: Presentation by the
6 Displaced Residents of
7 South Indian Lake, and
8 Justice Seekers of Nelson House 2310
9 PCN-1000: Oral submission of PCN 2337
10 PCN-1001: Statement of William Osborne 2338
11 OTH-1000: Presentation
12 submitted by Mr. Kidd 2351
13 DRSIL-1001: Recording -Hydro Development
14 Conference - Public Debate #2 & #3 2352
15 OTH-1001: Mr. Hilliard's typed presentation
16 to the Commission 2380
17 OTH-1002: Mr. Murphy's presentation 2397
18 OTH-1003: Presentation by Allan
19 Ciekiewicz 2419
20
21
22
23
24
25
2185
1
2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS
3
4 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE
5
6
7 No Undertakings given
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2186
1 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004
2 Upon commencing at 1:06 p.m.
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. We are about
5 to begin. And on the order paper for today, we will
6 begin with the presentation by Pimicikamak, PCN. And
7 I gather we're all ready so I will call upon Ms.
8 Kempton to come forward to make the presentation.
9 Before you begin, I am informed, Ms. Kempton,
10 that you had asked to make the presentation without
11 being questioned. And the Commission Panel has
12 discussed this issue and is of the opinion that as
13 one of the funded groups, you should be required to
14 abide by the same procedures as all the other groups
15 who will be presenting and those that have been
16 presenting.
17 You are presenting evidence, some of which is
18 new evidence, and therefore it is only fair that we
19 proceed in the same manner.
20 MS. KEMPTON: Thank you, Mr. Chair,
21 Commissioners, participants, audience. I am Kate
22 Kempton, K-E-M-P-T-O-N, legal counsel to Pimicikamak
23 in this matter. To my right is William Osborne,
24 Executive Council Member for Pimicikamak responsible
25 for intergovernmental relations.
2187
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar.
2 MR. GREWAR: I'd ask you to both state your
3 names for the record, please.
4 MS. KEMPTON: Kate Kempton.
5 MR. OSBORNE: Mr. William Osborne.
6 MR. GREWAR: Are you both aware that it is an
7 offence in Manitoba to knowingly mislead this
8 Commission?
9 MS. KEMPTON: I am.
10 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell only the
11 truth in proceedings before this Commission?
12 MS. KEMPTON: I do.
13 MR. GREWAR: Thank you so much.
14
15 (KATE KEMPTON: SWORN)
16 (WILLIAM OSBORNE: SWORN)
17
18 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
19 MS. KEMPTON: Thank you. In regard to the
20 Chair's comments about questioning, I've never
21 indicated that I wouldn't entertain questions.
22 Please understand I'm here as legal counsel, I am not
23 here as a witness.
24 This what we'll be presenting today is a
25 summary statement, Pimicikamak's position in regard
2188
1 to the issues raised and relevant to this proceeding.
2 Mr. Osborne will be making a brief statement
3 at the end. If you wish to question him or parties
4 wish to question him, he will be available for that
5 as well.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
7 MS. KEMPTON: The Wuskwatim proposal and this
8 hearing have, in Pimicikamak's submission, come down
9 to two key issues at this stage. The first is
10 substance. What are the nuts and bolts of what we're
11 dealing with here?
12 The nuts and bolts of what we're dealing with
13 is a failure or a refusal by Hydro to acknowledge
14 that we don't know what the current Hydro system and
15 its impacts are and thus we cannot know how Wuskwatim
16 will affect these given current information. I'd
17 like to take us through a very brief overview of
18 what's happened in that regard.
19 Hydro first denied that Wuskwatim would have
20 any impact on the operations and impacts of the
21 existing Hydro system to which it would be added.
22 Hydro later said, after repeated urging by
23 Pimicikamak, that there would be system impacts. But
24 Hydro then stated that these impacts would be minimal
25 and therefore could effectively be ignored. That is,
2189
1 there should be no requirement to study them or
2 substantiate that assertion with evidence.
3 Pimicikamak challenged the accuracy of this
4 bare assertion of minimal on the basis that there was
5 and is to date no evidence to support it and there is
6 something to speak against it, a long and
7 questionable track record by Hydro in the past.
8 Assertions of minimal impacts were made by Hydro in
9 the past and turned out to be completely wrong.
10 In the early 1970s, Hydro representatives came
11 to Pimicikamak territory, held out a pencil and said
12 the water fluctuations and the impacts will be no
13 greater than the length of this pencil. To date,
14 Pimicikamak has recorded impacts as great as nine
15 feet. That is many many times greater the water
16 fluctuations, the water levels have fluctuated and
17 changed many many more times than this pencil. But
18 that's what they were told in the early 1970s. This
19 pencil would be all that they would have to worry
20 about. People, lands and waters have suffered
21 tremendously as a result.
22 Further, Pimicikamak asked what does minimal
23 mean? Wuskwatim will not operate by itself. It will
24 be part of the existing Hydro project. If you add
25 impacts from Wuskwatim to impacts that exist and
2190
1 continue to grow worse, can you still claim minimal?
2 How much of a kick is enough to push things over the
3 edge?
4 Pimicikamak kept asking for evidence and
5 disclosure about such system impacts and the
6 economics of Wuskwatim in the system because
7 economics drive Hydro operations and operations, in
8 turn, determine impacts. We were repeatedly refused
9 such information.
10 Then at the main hearing on the first day,
11 Hydro explicitly acknowledged, because of how the
12 Hydro system works, that these impacts would be felt
13 more at or near Cross Lake, Pimicikamak territory,
14 than anywhere else due to seasonal matching. It
15 acknowledged that export pricing is a major factor in
16 how the system is operated and in determining how
17 Wuskwatim could alter system operations, and thus,
18 impacts.
19 But then, brushing aside these admissions,
20 Hydro said Wuskwatim's impacts on the existing system
21 would be imperceptible. Now they are saying less
22 than minimal, now we're at imperceptible. The only
23 so-called evidence that Hydro gives for this position
24 is "25 years of experience operating the hydro
25 system." But this is 25 years of operating the hydro
2191
1 system to some extent, even a great extent in the
2 dark. There had been no review or comprehensive
3 analyses of impacts from the existing system and no
4 environmental licence requiring monitoring or
5 mitigation. And within these 25 years, many of
6 Hydro's practices had been subject to severe
7 reprimand as a result of two independent inquiries,
8 a judicial inquiry and an inter-church inquiry.
9 Hydro might have 25 years of experience but is
10 it, with nothing more, valid experience that we can
11 rely on in this review? No denigration to my father
12 but it's like my father would often tell me, "Don't
13 tell me how to drive, I have 40 years of experience."
14 And yet he puts two feet to the pedals at the same
15 time. If you don't learn it properly and don't learn
16 how to do it properly anywhere through your
17 experience, it doesn't count for very much.
18 We have a proposal that by Hydro's own
19 accounting and what experts are saying is likely
20 marginally economically viable at best. And that is
21 without taking account of potential further
22 environmental and socioeconomic consequences; that
23 is, without taking those into account. Are we really
24 still in the dark ages of thinking that any potential
25 revenue is good for society despite the costs? Are
2192
1 we really still in the age of oppression when
2 indigenous peoples are somehow just expected to bear
3 the burden of those costs? That is the issue of
4 substance.
5 The second issue is that of procedure. A
6 process that to date has failed the substance.
7 Despite the fact that Hydro has now finally
8 acknowledged that there will be system impacts and
9 that these could well be borne mostly in and around
10 Cross Lake or by Pimicikamak. And despite the fact
11 that Hydro offers no credible evidence to support its
12 assertions that such impacts should be written off or
13 ignored as imperceptible, this process proceeds as if
14 all is well.
15 What do any of us think this review process is
16 really about? Style? A formal hearing setting? A
17 formal agenda? The exchange of thousands of pieces
18 of paper? Or is it about substance? Where
19 necessary, core relevant information is exchanged
20 subject to critical analysis and scrutiny so that
21 decisions are made in the light and not the dark.
22 Given what has happened to date, you can't
23 blame anyone for thinking that the process is focused
24 too much on style. There appears to be an attempt,
25 for instance, by Hydro to rush this proposal through
2193
1 without anything close to proper disclosure and
2 analysis of system impacts, their economic drivers
3 and alternatives to Wuskwatim.
4 Instead, we have Hydro justifying its own lack
5 of disclosure by saying such disclosure is not
6 needed. Again, they are justifying their own lack of
7 disclosure by simply saying it's not needed. They
8 call it circular argument for a reason. No one is
9 stopping this.
10 Why such a push to get speedy approval? It's
11 not as if the lights are going to go out if it takes
12 longer to properly review Wuskwatim. In fact, it's
13 not as if the lights would go out at all if Wuskwatim
14 isn't approved. By Hydro's own account, Manitoba
15 will not need Wuskwatim until 2020 and that's even
16 questionable.
17 One is tempted to ask what is Hydro afraid of
18 from a full review? Why have time and resources not
19 been made available to ensure a fair and full review?
20 Pimicikamak stated back in the motion hearing
21 of September 30th that unless the issues of substance
22 were dealt with, this process might turn out to be a
23 rubber stamp. Is this a process that will simply add
24 to the store of things over which the public is
25 cynical in regard to government or agency review and
2194
1 other processes or can the CEC still effect a
2 difference.
3 I'd like to talk a little bit more about
4 substance, system impacts.
5 There are core issues relevant and necessary
6 to determining whether Wuskwatim should be approved
7 or not, and if so, under what conditions. That is
8 why we're here. And information about such issues
9 has not yet been disclosed. As long as it remains
10 undisclosed and hidden from public and CEC scrutiny,
11 any conclusions will be made in the dark. I've said
12 this 100 different ways and 100 times, it still
13 remains the case.
14 These issues are system impacts meaning how
15 Wuskwatim, if added to the system, will affect the
16 current operations and impacts of that system and
17 economics. Again, economics are the driver of
18 operations which again are the driver of impacts.
19 There is a system, there is a Hydro project.
20 It's called the Churchill River Diversion, Lake
21 Winnipeg Regulation, Nelson River Works and
22 Operations. By its very name, we can see that this
23 system comprises a large integrated complex.
24 Wuskwatim would become a part of and affect this
25 complex. System impacts are not separate and apart
2195
1 from Wuskwatim. They are not some peripheral issue.
2 They can't be.
3 The key problem is that we don't know how and
4 to what extent Wuskwatim will affect existing impacts
5 of the project and that's how good or bad Wuskwatim
6 might be or how to manage it in all of its impacts.
7 There is no conceivable way that understanding system
8 impacts would not be relevant and likely of core
9 relevance to approval of a project that was to be
10 added to the system.
11 System impacts have not been deleted from the
12 Wuskwatim proposal. The proposal was changed from
13 its original design but that didn't delete the system
14 impacts. Evidence from Chris Goodwin, former head of
15 System Planning at Manitoba Hydro at the September
16 30th motion hearing confirms that the reason that the
17 impacts will be more minimal than originally designed
18 in the immediate area of Wuskwatim is because they
19 have been transferred to other parts of the system
20 including and especially to Cross Lake and Jenpeg.
21 The alteration of Wuskwatim's operational design from
22 its original has resulted in a transfer, not a
23 deletion, of impacts.
24 Why does this proceeding carry on as if this
25 evidence had never been given and as if Pimicikamak
2196
1 was not most likely to be affected? We aren't
2 looking at system impacts at all.
3 Without a cumulative effects assessment,
4 looking at the system and its impacts now and in the
5 future, how is it possible to conclude that there
6 will be no material impacts as a result of Wuskwatim?
7 How is it possible to determine whether changes to
8 something might be material if you don't consider how
9 seriously affected that the thing already is that
10 you're going to further affect.
11 Bald assertions remain bald unless they are
12 tested. Bald assertions should not be able to
13 justify themselves by the failure to test them by
14 saying we don't need to. It doesn't make sense.
15 It's not as if we shouldn't know better. Well,
16 likely no one knows the extent to which each impact
17 of the system interacts with the others and the
18 ecosystems. We do know enough to know that such
19 impacts have been devastating.
20 The inter-church inquiry report of December
21 2001 stated that the Hydro project constitutes an
22 ongoing ecological, social and moral catastrophe.
23 These are ongoing catastrophic effects. This is not
24 in the past as Chief Jerry Primrose said. This is
25 today, tomorrow, and many tomorrows to come until we
2197
1 start doing our job of assessing and understanding
2 the Hydro project as a whole.
3 Until we start managing the impacts from the
4 Hydro project as a whole, Wuskwatim will become yet
5 another part of this whole as would Conawapa, Gull
6 and many other proposed additions. These are
7 catastrophic impacts.
8 Why does this proceeding carry on as if
9 Hydro's marketing propaganda of clean, green and
10 renewable is factually correct? Since when is
11 renewable defined as ongoing catastrophe? When have
12 we ever just blindly accepted an ad campaign as the
13 truth without challenging it and demanding evidence
14 to support it.
15 But we do seem to just accept these words as
16 magic here and either fail or refuse to understand
17 what is really going on. We seem to accept the
18 marketing words that Wuskwatim itself is
19 environmentally friendly because it doesn't flood
20 much and it's low head. When are we going to start
21 getting it that flooding is by far not the most
22 important measure of impacts in this system. When
23 are we going to start getting it that Wuskwatim would
24 feed off the current project and the catastrophic
25 impacts that it causes and continues to cause? When?
2198
1 When we demand full information from Hydro about what
2 all the impacts are so we can then and only then
3 understand how to best mitigate and manage them as
4 more and more development is added to this single
5 integrated system.
6 While the CEC and others might wish to take
7 Hydro at its word, through bitter experience, some of
8 which was revealed in the Tritschler Judicial
9 Inquiry, Pimicikamak is of the opinion that blind
10 acceptance of Hydro's assertions is imprudent.
11 Further, this entire proceeding is about not blindly
12 accepting anything but ensuring that there is
13 sufficient testing of all assertions and sufficient
14 disclosure of all necessary information.
15 Since this proceeding is not challenging
16 Hydro's bare assertions about the pencil affect,
17 Hydro's assertions have been allowed to date to
18 govern this entire proceeding. This is entirely
19 contrary to the very purpose of this sort of review.
20 Now, because core issues of substance have been
21 brushed aside, Pimicikamak is faced with a proposal
22 that could make a very bad situation worse in ways or
23 degrees that Hydro refuses to consider and disclose.
24 Let's talk a little bit more about procedure.
25 This CEC proceeding has failed to date to address
2199
1 core issues of substance, being system impacts and
2 their economic drivers. Participants have not been
3 given the information required to test the assertions
4 of Hydro that we can just brush aside system impacts.
5 And I'd like to talk about how that's happened.
6 Manitoba Hydro has itself defined what is
7 relevant and important and what is not and then
8 disclosed what it deems it should and not disclose
9 what it deems it doesn't have to based on this
10 definition.
11 Neither the heavily papered interrogatory
12 process nor anything in this main hearing to date has
13 resulted in disclosure and analysis of system impacts
14 and their economic drivers. Instead, we get circular
15 argument after circular argument that amounts to
16 Hydro saying it isn't important because we say it
17 isn't important. And since we say this, we don't
18 have to disclose anything to prove it.
19 The interrogatory process was largely a
20 significant waste of time and money since core
21 relevant information was not disclosed through it.
22 And this is despite great attempts by participants to
23 get at this information. Our written submission to
24 the main hearing outlines Pimicikamak's attempts to
25 get at this core information about system impacts and
2200
1 their economic drivers and Hydro's refusals to
2 provide it. I am not going to go over all of that
3 now.
4 We now have lots of witnesses and
5 cross-examination in the main hearing. That's good.
6 But none of it is able to get at the core issue of
7 system impacts because simply Hydro refuses to reveal
8 or deal with these. All this procedure might look
9 good but that's because we're dancing on the surface
10 when the real stuff, the big issues, are below the
11 surface and a lot of those issues aren't very pretty.
12 We're not just skimming the surface, we're
13 racing over it on some fast track. Pimicikamak and
14 other participants have not been given the
15 information or resources to check this race. And
16 because of this, it is likely to be a race right into
17 a dark tunnel. We are virtually no further ahead in
18 regard to system impacts and their economic drivers
19 than when this proceeding started and certainly
20 further behind in terms of resources. It appears
21 more and more likely as we race ahead on the surface
22 that any conclusions, as a result of this proceeding,
23 will in fact be made in the dark.
24 Further in what might be an attempt to deflect
25 attention from the CEC proceeding, Hydro raised in
2201
1 its rebuttal to Pimicikamak other processes in which
2 Pimicikamak was or is involved suggesting that Hydro
3 was prepared to offer information but Pimicikamak
4 didn't take it or accepted it as wholly sufficient.
5 First let's talk about the public information
6 process which Hydro raised. Hydro said it wasn't
7 allowed into Cross Lake to bring information to the
8 citizens there. People at Cross Lake are traumatized
9 by what has been happening to them as a result of the
10 existing Hydro project. They are traumatized by the
11 false story of the pencil. Before allowing Hydro in
12 to hold up yet another pencil, Pimicikamak needed to
13 first make sure that this time, the pencil story was
14 the truth. Pimicikamak has of course to date
15 received no information to substantiate this.
16 Second, Hydro raised the consultation process
17 under Article 9 of the NFA. Hydro submitted meeting
18 notes to this Commission from George Rempel of TetrES
19 as if, I don't know, that these were approved and
20 accepted by Pimicikamak as minutes of this meeting.
21 They were not. Pimicikamak and its counsel had never
22 seen these notes prior to them being submitted to the
23 CEC. They are notes with Hydro's spin on things.
24 They do not accurately reflect Pimicikamak's repeated
25 attempt in this Article 9 process as well to get core
2202
1 information about system impacts and their economic
2 drivers.
3 What they do reflect, to some degree, is
4 Hydro's refusal to provide such information.
5 Pimicikamak's decision there in that process to
6 accept what information it could get in no way
7 indicates that Pimicikamak accepts the merit of
8 providing less information than is necessary. It
9 appears that Pimicikamak will now have to rely on the
10 Section 35 consultation process. Let's talk about
11 that.
12 Consultation under Section 35 of the
13 Constitution. It's the responsibility of the Federal
14 and Provincial Crowns. And that responsibility is to
15 ensure that if Wuskwatim goes ahead, it does so in
16 such a way as to minimize any adverse impacts on
17 Pimicikamak and other affected Aboriginal peoples.
18 This process has been proceeding very slowly
19 but it's still moving ahead. We're happy to hear, or
20 that I read in the transcript, that Hydro, through
21 Mr. Wojczynski, has confirmed that no licences are
22 going to be issued for Wuskwatim until the Section 35
23 consultations are complete. That's good.
24 We remind the Commission that we suggested
25 back in our Motion hearing of September 30th that it
2203
1 made sense to apply the disclosure standards required
2 under Section 35 to the CEC process as well to ensure
3 consistency and to ensure that the CEC process would
4 not be a waste of time. That of course hasn't
5 happened.
6 In summary, the Commission should not accept
7 in any way that other processes or consultations have
8 to date been adequate to reveal and analyze the
9 information necessary to knowing whether or not
10 Wuskwatim should be approved, and if so, under what
11 conditions so as to minimize adverse impacts. The
12 legal standards required in Section 35 consultation
13 should get at this information but it is not yet
14 disclosed, regardless of any other process pertaining
15 to Wuskwatim. The Commission has its own legal
16 mandate and duties which Pimicikamak has submitted
17 from day one require information and analysis of
18 system impacts and their economic drivers and how
19 Wuskwatim will alter these. The Commission cannot
20 skirt or shelve its own duty on the basis that some
21 other process might do this job.
22 There is another "process" that has been the
23 focus of some attention and cross-examination in this
24 hearing, being Pimicikamak's U.S. campaign of truth.
25 We're happy to hear so much attention being given to
2204
1 it even in regard to witnesses who were not here on
2 Pimicikamak's behalf in any capacity. Of course the
3 campaign was mischaracterized as against the purchase
4 of hydro power. It is not. It is against continuing
5 unchecked devastation wrought by impacts from the
6 production of this hydro power and an appeal to clean
7 up and mitigate and find cleaner and safer solutions.
8 Most campaigns are started by people who feel
9 that other avenues for solutions are failing or not
10 working well. This certainly seems to be bearing
11 out. The fact that Pimicikamak, a nation struggling
12 to survive on so many fronts, felt forced to
13 undertake such campaigns, should indicate the extent
14 to which rights have not been honoured through other
15 means. And the fact that people in the U.S. and
16 Canada and internationally are paying attention, even
17 in some instances in hostile ways, indicates that the
18 issues Pimicikamak is raising are very important to
19 many.
20 We ought to wake up and deal with them and not
21 brush them aside or under the carpet. We ought to
22 deal with them whether as a legal responsibility to
23 do so including here. These issues will not go away
24 by ignoring them. Neither will Pimicikamak.
25 If this proceeding does not address the core
2205
1 issues repeatedly and consistently raised by
2 Pimicikamak, this will be a failure that might well
3 affect all Manitobans and others but it will
4 certainly be a failure that we have heard is likely
5 to affect Pimicikamak most. History repeats but it
6 doesn't have to.
7 There are ways out. There are things that can
8 be done. Pimicikamak proposed the following remedy
9 or suggestion in its written submission to the main
10 hearing. For the CEC to clearly state that this
11 proceeding requires full information on existing
12 system impacts and how Wuskwatim might alter these
13 without any assumptions or bald assertions of what's
14 minimal, what's not, what's relevant, what's not, by
15 Hydro. Full information would include what is known
16 and what can be learned through different modelling
17 and other reasonable and not onerous research
18 techniques. If the Commission were to do this, the
19 proceeding would have to be adjourned until all such
20 information was disclosed and until sufficient
21 resources were allocated to the Commission and to the
22 participants to test the information.
23 It is true that it's always difficult to
24 assess cumulative effects. This is no reason not to
25 do so. When cumulative effects are the very essence
2206
1 of what is relevant to a process analyzing a
2 development that will be added to and alter one big
3 integrated complex. Cumulative effects are it, the
4 most, the important thing. There is no way around
5 it. We must start by understanding what is already
6 there so we can understand what each new addition,
7 including Wuskwatim, will do to that so we can
8 understand how to manage the thing for what it is,
9 one integrated whole.
10 If what happens with this Hydro project is
11 guided by what should happen, i.e. what is in the
12 best interest of the public and the environment, then
13 in this case, we must start with an understanding of
14 existing impacts. This understanding will no doubt
15 help determine ways in which the system should and
16 should not develop. It will help determine what is
17 working and what is not and thus where it is feasible
18 to go and where it is not.
19 This would be the start of developing the
20 holistic picture of hydro development now and in the
21 future in Manitoba that is sorely lacking right now
22 but could still be acquired. Only such a picture
23 will allow Manitobans to rationally make
24 determinations about whether anything should be added
25 or changed, and if so, what, when, how and how it
2207
1 should be managed.
2 If the above steps are not taken and the CEC
3 proceeds to make substantive recommendations, it is
4 likely that Wuskwatim will be approved in the dark,
5 further perpetuating the lack of knowledge and
6 understanding and thus the failure to set conditions
7 to ensure appropriate environmental management. As
8 Wuskwatim is the first of a number of new Hydro
9 developments being proposed, the ramifications of
10 this darkness loom exponentially larger the more we
11 look into the future.
12 If the above steps are taken, however, if
13 there is sufficient knowledge and understanding of
14 the existing impacts and how this one development
15 might affect these, then this will guide how to
16 conduct a cumulative effects assessment of Wuskwatim
17 in combination with other future developments. Light
18 shed here and now will in turn have exponential
19 positive effects well into the future.
20 If the Commission feels it cannot, at this
21 stage, take the above steps I've mentioned by
22 requiring this information now, ensuring that it's
23 delivered and subjected to proper and critical
24 analysis and debate, then the Commission, without
25 having that information, would effectively be in the
2208
1 position of approving, pardon me, a pig in a poke.
2 Pimicikamak submits that the Commission should
3 submit its report to the Minister making it clear
4 that as a result of Hydro's failure to disclose core
5 necessary information and a lack of resources to
6 analyze this, the Commission is not in a position to
7 make recommendations.
8 Pimicikamak's opinion, there is no other
9 alternative but the two put before you at this point.
10 William.
11
12 (MR. OSBORNE SPEAKS IN CREE)
13
14 MR. OSBORNE: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
15 Good afternoon to you all. I welcome each and every
16 one of you. My name is William Osborne. I am a
17 member of the Executive Council of Pimicikamak with
18 responsibility for intergovernmental affairs. Thank
19 you for the opportunity to tell you something about
20 our concerns.
21 We are not against development. We support
22 sustainable development. But we do not support
23 development that causes more damage to our lands and
24 our lives. We believe that developers should find
25 out and face up to the truth about what they are
2209
1 doing. Developers should do this, not in a hostile
2 or adversarial way, but in an open and an honest way.
3 Our experience is that Manitoba Hydro is
4 destroying critical boreal ecosystems. It is
5 destroying our place in the world. Our experience is
6 that Manitoba Hydro has not told the truth about this
7 in the past.
8 Even today, Manitoba Hydro does not honestly
9 admit the damage it is causing. It even promotes its
10 energy as clean, green and sustainable. For example,
11 take a look at the big wall picture down Portage
12 Avenue at St. James Street. This is a big lie. It
13 is profoundly offensive and damaging to our people.
14 In hiding the damage that its project is
15 doing, Manitoba Hydro also does very little to remedy
16 that damage. In this way, our impoverished citizens
17 subsidize cheap energy exports.
18 Our people are living today with a Manitoba
19 Hydro project that a public inquiry, a public inquiry
20 that listened to the evidence and considered the
21 facts, described as an ecological, social and moral
22 catastrophe. We understand that Manitoba Hydro has
23 grudgingly admitted that Wuskwatim promises more of
24 the same, more of a catastrophe.
25 Manitoba Hydro says it will not be a lot more
2210
1 of a catastrophe relative to what we are already
2 experiencing. They say it will be imperceptible. It
3 would not surprise us if it is imperceptible to
4 Manitoba Hydro because our experience is that
5 Manitoba Hydro does not want to know what it is
6 doing.
7 We find Manitoba Hydro's assurances to be
8 neither credible nor trustworthy. We are concerned
9 that Manitoba Hydro may once again not be telling the
10 truth.
11 However little or however much extra
12 catastrophe Wuskwatim might cause, we should not have
13 any increase in this catastrophe deliberately
14 inflicted on us especially while most of the promised
15 remediation of existing impacts has not been done.
16 We understand that there are limits on what
17 this Commission can do. We understand that the
18 Manitoba Government may have already decided to build
19 Wuskwatim. However, we ask the Commission to uphold
20 the integrity of its mandate.
21 The Pimicikamak people respectfully ask the
22 Commission to tell the Manitoba Government that the
23 Commission cannot recommend, with confidence, any way
24 to build and operate this dam that is consistent with
25 effective and environmental management.
2211
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Sergeant.
2 MR. SARGEANT: First of all, Ms. Kempton, I
3 would like to thank you for a very thoughtful
4 presentation today and I think I can assure you that
5 we will give your concerns and those of Mr. Osborne
6 and those of the people of PCN very serious
7 consideration.
8 I would like to challenge your assertion or
9 your criticism of us procedurally for not having
10 considered the matter of system impacts to date. I
11 would simply note that while, strictly speaking, that
12 is true, we are still involved in the NFAAT part of
13 the proceedings, we have gone somewhat beyond our
14 schedule and we have yet to turn to the EIS portion
15 of the consideration. At that time, we will canvass
16 those issues I think very thoroughly.
17 I would like to ask a question of either of
18 you.
19 And, Mr. Osborne, just in your final comments,
20 you spoke about the impacts or you alluded to the
21 impacts on your community. What specifically are
22 those concerns or is your concern the fact that the
23 information, if or such as it exists, has not been
24 released? What impacts will Wuskwatim have on the
25 Pimicikamak Cree Nation?
2212
1 MR. OSBORNE: Well, let me put it this way.
2 Many years ago, I was a young fella not knowing the
3 politics or the global economics political actions.
4 I was told many many years ago some people came to
5 our homeland and talked to our people about Hydro
6 development projects. And they said this is only how
7 much we will indirectly or directly affect your
8 homeland. To this day, I have seen it nine feet or
9 more erosion, boreal forest fall into the lake.
10 Here we are again as an individual old enough
11 to know and to understand what's happening. I
12 personally don't want to see the same process of lies
13 happening to my people. The same process of promises
14 not being fulfilled way after the fact. The same
15 process of having to do the way it's supposed to be
16 done. So I'm particularly concerned that if they are
17 going to do something, do it right. If you don't
18 meet your own laws or criterias, rules or
19 regulations, don't do it. Respect your own laws and
20 respect what people say about any development.
21 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you.
22 MS. KEMPTON: We had been raising all along in
23 this process that we couldn't answer that question
24 and neither can the Commission and neither can anyone
25 because the information required to answer it hasn't
2213
1 been disclosed. How will Wuskwatim affect
2 Pimicikamak, Cross Lake, other parts and other
3 peoples who live by and on the lands that are
4 affected by the system.
5 We're still there today but not entirely. We
6 don't have the information, we don't have the
7 details. We don't know if it's a pencil cap, a
8 pencil, a yard stick, a mile, we don't know that.
9 Again, because Hydro hasn't disclosed that. But the
10 point that Mr. Osborne was making is even if it's a
11 pencil cap or a pencil, degrees more, water
12 fluctuation and all the damage that comes from that.
13 It's not -- it doesn't exist by itself. It's not the
14 only thing that's there. What's there is a massive
15 amount of catastrophic destruction already.
16 If Hydro is now saying that Cross Lake, and it
17 is saying, Cross Lake would be the most affected in
18 the system because of how it operates, then you're
19 talking about adding more to what's already
20 catastrophic. That's not acceptable in anybody's
21 laws, moral, legal or otherwise.
22 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer.
24 MR. MAYER: Ms. Kempton, you've indicated that
25 your concern, your substantive concern is cumulative
2214
1 system impacts, correct?
2 MS. KEMPTON: Yes, and the economic drivers
3 behind them, but that's correct. It's the system
4 impacts.
5 MR. MAYER: You will agree and you have stated
6 that Hydro's bald assertions need to be tested?
7 MS. KEMPTON: That's correct.
8 MR. MAYER: You will agree with me, won't you,
9 Ms. Kempton, that in a process like this, that the
10 two methods of testing such evidence, which bald
11 assertions given under oath happen to be evidence,
12 are by the purpose of cross-examination and by the
13 employment of independent experts to, in fact,
14 research and determine whether or not Hydro's experts
15 are correct. Would you not agree with me?
16 MS. KEMPTON: Not entirely. I'd say that's
17 some of the methodology. But looking to my right and
18 to the people sitting at the tables out there,
19 there's another important one you missed which is
20 providing the resources and information, mostly
21 information, from Hydro necessary for the public
22 participants especially those most likely to be
23 affected to be able to test the assertions.
24 MR. MAYER: That's three, and I'm sorry, and I
25 missed the fourth. And that's the fourth is the
2215
1 evidence of the people most affected by any past
2 developments of Hydro. Will you agree with me that
3 that also should be added to the list?
4 MS. KEMPTON: I'd say that should be at the
5 top of the list.
6 MR. MAYER: And, Ms. Kempton, you will recall
7 at the participant assistance hearings, you advised
8 the Commission it was your intention to provide
9 evidence from a Mr. Robert McCullough and a Mr. Ian
10 Goodman who were apparently, as we were told, experts
11 in the issues of system effects. Do you recall that?
12 MS. KEMPTON: That's our original submission
13 and our original budget. That evidence was provided
14 in part at the motion.
15 MR. MAYER: Well, interestingly enough, Ms.
16 Kempton, your motion is not evidence before this
17 hearing and I'm sure you are well aware of that, are
18 you?
19 MS. KEMPTON: In our -- first of all, let's
20 cut through this. All the independent expert
21 assessment including by energy experts like Ian
22 Goodman and Robert McCullough, all of that good as it
23 is in the world cannot dig deep enough if they are
24 not able to get the information from Hydro that they
25 require if they can't get baseline core information
2216
1 or get information about how Hydro has reached its
2 conclusions to test the accuracy and veracity of
3 that. That's the point that I have been making and
4 Pimicikamak has been making.
5 We can, as I said, dance on the surface. We
6 can do a lot. We can try. But if you don't have the
7 thing there in front of you, the information that you
8 need to test, then you're testing in a vacuum.
9 I'm not saying the Commission hasn't received
10 some good information but it hasn't received the
11 information necessary by the participants and by the
12 Commission to be able to test the assertion of
13 minimal impacts.
14 MR. MAYER: Ms. Kempton, I think I heard you
15 say that before. I am not sure that it was
16 responsive to my question. But as a matter of fact,
17 I'm advised, and I was part of the committee, I
18 believe you were allotted or awarded by the Minister
19 something in the area of $170,000 in participant
20 assistant funding; am I correct?
21 MS. KEMPTON: Pimicikamak, as a participant,
22 was awarded $160,000 which is 70 per cent of what we
23 submitted we required.
24 MR. MAYER: $160,000. And we were also
25 advised by our staff that you have informed us that
2217
1 you do not intend to call any other evidence other
2 than the two of you here; am I correct in that?
3 MS. KEMPTON: Again, let me be clear. The
4 information today, if you want to call William
5 Osborne's submission as evidence, that's up to you.
6 But the evidence I am used to dealing with is closer
7 to being court-defined evidence. The submission
8 today was a summary statement of Pimicikamak's
9 position.
10 MR. MAYER: I understand it's a summary
11 statement of Pimicikamak's position. But the
12 evidence before this Commission is limited to what we
13 hear here and you have advised the Commission, have
14 you not, that you intend to call no other evidence or
15 whatever it is you choose to call what yours and Mr.
16 Osborne's statements just were, you intend to do
17 nothing else; am I correct?
18 MS. KEMPTON: Yeah. In our written submission
19 to the main hearing, it does say that in deriving
20 the, whatever you want to call it, conclusions and
21 statements that we have, we are relying on the
22 evidence we had previously submitted to the motion
23 hearing. So I am expecting that in the sense that
24 it's been submitted and accepted by the Commission,
25 it is before the Commission at this hearing but no
2218
1 further evidence would be submitted, that's correct.
2 MR. MAYER: Ms. Kempton, again, you've
3 mentioned procedure and the procedures of the
4 Commission and I really want to try to get this
5 clear.
6 MS. KEMPTON: Um-hum.
7 MR. MAYER: Firstly. You will understand that
8 the people who are sitting here today are not the
9 same people who were sitting there on September 20th.
10 You will acknowledge that?
11 MS. KEMPTON: Yes. Not everybody is the same,
12 that's correct.
13 MR. MAYER: This is a different panel.
14 MS. KEMPTON: Part of the composition is
15 different, certainly.
16 MR. MAYER: And you are a lawyer, I am a
17 lawyer. You will concede that evidence given on a
18 motion is not necessarily evidence at the hearing,
19 correct?
20 MS. KEMPTON: No, I don't agree. I don't know
21 where you're going but I guess if you're trying to
22 figure out procedurally what we have to take issue
23 with, we regard this as an entire proceeding from
24 beginning to end. The interrogatory process is part
25 of it as was our motion evidence, argument,
2219
1 submissions and whatnot that have happened from the
2 beginning of it through to the end we regard as one
3 single proceeding. We're not chopping off the main
4 hearing from the rest of it.
5 MR. MAYER: Well then with all due respect,
6 Ms. Kempton, in my humble opinion, you're incorrect.
7 Procedurally, legally incorrect. That's not where
8 I'm going particularly.
9 You have indicated you are not going to be
10 calling any other evidence despite the fact you just
11 earlier told me that some of the most important
12 evidence should be of the people who were involved
13 and who have been devastated. But we're not going to
14 hear any of that from your client?
15 MS. KEMPTON: I had made it clear, I thought,
16 in correspondence going back to I believe December,
17 if not earlier, and in the final written submission
18 to the Commission this isn't a choice one would wish
19 to make. It is a choice we felt -- it's no choice at
20 this point for Pimicikamak. They have no resources
21 to carry forward further than what we have to
22 participate any further than we're doing in this main
23 hearing.
24 MR. MAYER: So the reason you're calling no
25 other evidence is because you are short of funding?
2220
1 MS. KEMPTON: Short? We are in the -- yeah,
2 let's put it that way. There's no resources
3 available.
4 MR. MAYER: Is that also the reason that you
5 have chosen, and again, correct me if I'm wrong
6 because as Mr. Sargeant previously mentioned, the
7 relevant cross-examination of Hydro on the EIS has
8 not yet taken place, but am I correct, am I being
9 correctly informed when I am informed that you have
10 no intention of participating in the
11 cross-examination of Hydro's EIS witnesses?
12 MS. KEMPTON: Again, this shouldn't be news
13 but that's correct. We have no resources to
14 participate any further than what you are seeing now.
15 MR. MAYER: I just wanted to confirm that the
16 information we have from our staff is correct and I
17 wanted to put that on the record. Thank you very
18 much.
19 MS. KEMPTON: You're welcome. If I can just
20 add to that. This is not the first time this has
21 come up. Pimicikamak made a decision to, if you
22 will, front-end its involvement in this process
23 because we saw that if this is based on the
24 documents, the assessment documents, the Needs For
25 Alternatives To and justification document and the
2221
1 EIS documents from Hydro, that this process was in
2 serious danger of missing the point. We decided to
3 front-end our involvement and therefore the costs of
4 that involvement at the beginning to try to get it on
5 the rails.
6 I don't know if we were successful to some
7 degree or not. I think the tenor of the debate in
8 this proceeding changed. I think issues were raised
9 by many others that possibly might not have been
10 raised before but for our motion. But certainly the
11 motion was dismissed. That was a decision that
12 Pimicikamak was entitled to make. We felt it behooved
13 the honour of this process and the honour of our
14 client to bring the issues forward that we did in the
15 motion. Did it cost us? Absolutely in the sense of
16 front-ending the financial aspect of our involvement
17 in this proceeding. We have appealed repeatedly to
18 seek extra participant funding and we were denied
19 repeatedly. You can't get blood from a stone.
20 At this point, we have long since run out of
21 participant funding and I'm afraid that as much as --
22 you know, in fact, I would say I'm sure Pimicikamak
23 would love to be able to bring forward more witness
24 and other evidence at this stage and if somebody is
25 willing to pay for that, great. But again, we're not
2222
1 in the position to do that at this point.
2 I don't want the issue to be skirted here that
3 we can present our own evidence of impacts and
4 catastrophe and whatnot and raise all kinds of
5 questions about what might or might not happen by
6 adding to that. But it's I think a terribly unfair
7 burden to place on any participant to require that
8 they bear the onus of doing what should have been and
9 is still Manitoba Hydro's job all along which is to
10 disclose and do its own research and own -- and its
11 own study and own compilation and to disclose all
12 information it has or doesn't have and the basis for
13 all assertions it has or doesn't have about system
14 impacts and what is or defined as minimal and how
15 they define it and all of that. That is Manitoba
16 Hydro's onus. It is not the public participants'.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Kempton, I just have one
18 question. Have you read the documents filed as part
19 of the NFAAT and the EIS on these particular
20 proposals?
21 MS. KEMPTON: Either I have or the energy
22 experts retained have. And through a sharing of
23 information, you know, we've been able to do that,
24 yes.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that you
2223
1 basically know what's in those documents?
2 MS. KEMPTON: I can't quote you details at
3 this stage, no, but I have, throughout the entire
4 proceeding, been sufficiently apprised and have made
5 the statements on behalf of Pimicikamak I am making
6 today, yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: It strikes me that you raise a
8 number of issues, some of them probably very valid,
9 but you don't specify what questions you have in
10 regards to those issues. And now I hear that you are
11 not going to or no one representing PCN will be
12 involved in terms of asking questions about these
13 issues that you refer to. So I'll leave it at that.
14 MS. KEMPTON: Just to clarify, we did specify.
15 The interrogatory record is there. We asked many
16 questions. Hydro's answers or refusal to answer or
17 provide the information we asked for is a part of the
18 record. We provided an outline of that in our
19 written submission to the main hearing.
20 So I don't think it's accurate to say we
21 haven't drawn to the attention, the Commission's
22 attention to more specific points about where we
23 sought information and where such information was
24 refused. We have in fact done so.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Could you
2224
1 come up, please.
2 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm Billy Moore of
3 South Indian Lake.
4 You stated that you lack funds to carry on
5 further in the cross-examination or to participate
6 within the hearing. Where did you get the funds from
7 from the beginning and how did you run out and is
8 there any way you can get more funding?
9 MS. KEMPTON: The funding was awarded as part
10 of the public participant funding process where
11 ultimately it, I believe, comes from the proponent.
12 And this is a standard process in an environmental
13 assessment and review where the proponent itself
14 funds the participant's involvement.
15 Just as a matter of perspective, I believe
16 that one of the Public Utilities Board's transcripts
17 will reveal I think, and you can check on this,
18 don't take my word necessarily for this point, I
19 believe that Hydro spent $5 million for one hearing
20 or for one year of one hearing for legal counsel and
21 other of its experts to participate in this sort of a
22 hearing.
23 When we applied for funds, Mr. Moore, at the
24 beginning, we didn't project how big this job was
25 going to be. The massive amount of work required in
2225
1 the interrogatory process which was, in our opinion,
2 didn't go anywhere and other things that developed
3 but we still applied for 30 per cent more than we got
4 which was insufficient to begin with therefore. We
5 estimated what we felt was a bare necessity. We
6 didn't get that. We ran out of those funds.
7 We wrote to the Commission. The Commission
8 directed us to write to the Minister of Conservation
9 seeking additional funding to be able to participate
10 more. The Minister, by a letter, denied those funds
11 or any ability to open the door to seek further
12 funding to us. And that -- I believe that letter --
13 I believe we received that letter early this year. I
14 don't have it with me. So we made the effort, all
15 the efforts we felt we could and we were denied.
16 MR. MOORE: Not to be arrogant about my
17 questioning and to bring out other vital components
18 about the entire hearing. Because of the Pimicikamak
19 being lack of funds to carry on further to these
20 hearings, I would recommend then perhaps they should
21 apply funding from the Hydro to -- from the Manitoba
22 Hydro to keep working or participating in this
23 hearing.
24 As an individual, in observing these things
25 and having been forced out of my community of South
2226
1 Indian Lake, I know that the Manitoba Hydro has got
2 money flying around to some groups that they are
3 funding for things like this. Premier Doer don't
4 have a problem to pick up the phone and ask Manitoba
5 Hydro for $280 million just to balance his budget.
6 What's wrong with Manitoba Hydro funding these
7 hearings for all the participants? I would recommend
8 that you apply the funding from them.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: There was no question there
10 that I heard anyways but thanks for your comments.
11 Other questions?
12 MR. DYSART: Good afternoon. My name is
13 Leslie Dysart from the community of South Indian
14 representing the Community Association of South
15 Indian Lake.
16 I'd like to direct my questions to William,
17 Mr. William Osborne. Back when the CRD took place
18 and Lake Winnipeg Regulation, myself, I was about
19 five, six years old when the CRD took place. But
20 listening to some of my oral history in South Indian
21 and some of the negotiations and discussion that took
22 place then and some of the research I've done, I'd
23 like to get a sense of how you view Manitoba Hydro
24 and, to some extent, the provincial and federal
25 governments in their dealings with Aboriginal
2227
1 peoples, more specifically with Pimicikamak.
2 In your opinion, Mr. Osborne, were promises
3 made to you and your people back in the CRD and Lake
4 Winnipeg Regulation projects of jobs, prosperity, a
5 better life?
6 MR. OSBORNE: Thank you. I think you and I
7 have something in common that we can address as a
8 whole. But you and I and the rest of the people in
9 our homeland have a lot in common to discuss amongst
10 ourselves, how governments, Crown corporations have
11 dealt with us as a people. How governments and Crown
12 corporations enacted the Indian Act rules and
13 regulations as they relate to the reserve concept and
14 to the Band members' concept on the subjugated
15 process.
16 We were promised over 1,000 jobs in early
17 1977, the signing of the treaty known as the Northern
18 Flood Agreement. We were promised that the
19 environment was going to be cleaned up. We were
20 promised that there would be education, training and
21 employment. We were promised of infrastructure. We
22 were promised of a community development plan on a
23 government-to-government basis. We were promised to
24 select lands. We were promised so many many things
25 under the Northern Flood Agreement.
2228
1 In my statement of concern about cleaning up
2 the mess, remedy the damage, I said most of the
3 damage is not being remedied. Manitoba Hydro is
4 doing some work but not enough. Debris has been
5 removed from 1 per cent of shorelines after 25 years
6 as per Article 5.3.3. Individuals have died after
7 hitting debris. People are afraid to use the
8 waterways. Manitoba Hydro is just beginning a
9 wetland restoration.
10 Manitoba Hydro has refused to come and see our
11 lakes and rivers and waters. Manitoba Hydro has
12 refused to see the bottom of our lakes that you and
13 I, Mr. Dysart, have witnessed as children. We see
14 the rocks -- we saw the rocks and the fish and the
15 ecosystems under waters. Today, we can't even see
16 our hand a couple of inches under water.
17 We've asked Manitoba Hydro to come and see the
18 mud that's piling up but have refused to come and
19 witness for themselves of the truth. And, yes, we
20 were promised but little has happened since 1977. I
21 hope I answered your question.
22 MR. DYSART: Yes, thank you. In your opinion,
23 has Manitoba Hydro failed in its obligations and
24 promises that they have made to the Pimicikamak
25 people?
2229
1 MR. OSBORNE: Yes, they have. And I am
2 witness to that for the last 25 years. And I am
3 witness to many many things within my homeland,
4 within my people, within the young people, within the
5 elders. Most of the elders have passed on without
6 seeing the Charter of Rights and benefits that were
7 promised to them in 1977.
8 Today, 50 per cent of our population is under
9 25. Today, those young people are going through the
10 same emotions, waiting and waiting for those Charter
11 of Rights and benefits. I hope that they don't pass
12 on like most of my elders have.
13 MR. DYSART: I have many further questions.
14 I'm sure we can spend a lot of time talking but I'll
15 leave it at that. And I thank you, William Osborne.
16 We can all learn something from you.
17 MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed.
19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. I have a couple
20 of questions. And my apologies, I was late so I did
21 not hear the full presentation. I have a couple of
22 questions that I would like to ask that are on
23 specifically environmental damage from the CRD and
24 connected structures. And I'd like to ask Vice-Chief
25 Osborne these questions.
2230
1 Do the transmission lines in respect to the
2 CRD also damage the forest and traditional lands?
3 MR. OSBORNE: Definitely.
4 MS. WHELAN-ENNS: Thank you. Is it possible
5 to fix the environmental damage from the Churchill
6 River Diversion?
7 MR. OSBORNE: Anything is possible when people
8 put their minds to do something about the damage. As
9 a matter of fact, little information that was shared
10 with me by my staff apparently Manitoba Hydro has
11 programs that can be applied for, programs that
12 apparently have been implemented in Lac Du Bonnet,
13 programs that show before and after. If they can do
14 that in Lac Du Bonnet, they can surely do what they
15 said they were going to do in early 1977 in our
16 homeland, whether it's transmission lines, whether
17 it's shoreline stabilization. They can do something
18 about it but they also can't if they don't want to.
19 That's what they have done so far.
20 MS. WHELAN ENNS: One last question. Could
21 the Wuskwatim projects then, the generation station
22 and the three sets of transmission lines add to the
23 damage that is there from the CRD?
24 MR. OSBORNE: I am told by my staff that the
25 Manitoba Hydro representatives sitting at our table,
2231
1 our table meaning Pimicikamak, the Province and
2 Manitoba Hydro, have grudgingly admitted that yes,
3 it's a good deal for Nelson House and Hydro in
4 regards to Wuskwatim in their own environment;
5 however, it is not a good deal for Pimicikamak, in
6 particular Jenpeg, because that's where the direct
7 adverse effects will eventually be seen. Maybe not
8 today but sometimes tomorrow if the Wuskwatim project
9 goes as planned and if the Commissioners do decide to
10 recommend that it goes.
11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McIvor.
13 MR. MCIVOR: Greg McIvor, Trapline 18. The
14 question, maybe the first one I'll ask of Mr.
15 Osborne. You indicated in your comments about the
16 boreal forest falling into the river. Some of the
17 other impacts that you also mentioned, are those part
18 of the adverse effects of the Northern Flood
19 Agreement? Like is that in the Northern Flood
20 Agreement and identified as adverse effects?
21 MR. OSBORNE: The ecosystems Manitoba Hydro is
22 destroying, as I said in my statement of concern is
23 the lake and the lake bed ecosystems are covered in
24 mud. Fluctuations or flooding destroyed the
25 shoreline ecosystems. The river ecosystems are
2232
1 totally reversed from nature. Water levels destroy
2 most water fowl habitat each year. Fish habitat is
3 trashed every year.
4 Like you and I can attest to this. If we
5 travel from Winnipeg on to the community of Cross
6 Lake via Perimeter Airlines, we see the devastation
7 from above. We see the lakes and rivers, how much
8 they are being dried up.
9 The Northern Flood Agreement promised, as per
10 Article 5.3.3, to clean up the environment. And
11 cleaning up the environment doesn't necessarily mean
12 that you clean up on the surface but it means that
13 you clean up a whole environment and you take a look
14 at the whole environment. You take into account
15 everything that comes with the environment, the fish,
16 the traplines, everything that comes with that
17 environment.
18 MR. MCIVOR: Maybe just another question. I
19 am not sure what reference in the Northern Flood
20 Agreement that pertains to Pimicikamak but I know
21 there is a statement or part of the agreement was to
22 eradicate unemployment. Was that in the agreement
23 with the NFA with Cross Lake?
24 MR. OSBORNE: The NFA promised in black and
25 white to eradicate mass poverty and unemployment. I
2233
1 think that spells it out that no one should argue
2 what that means. Article 18.5 specifically talks
3 about employment, training and education as per
4 policy.
5 MR. MCIVOR: Okay. Maybe just for Ms.
6 Kempton. There was a mention by the new waters
7 Minister, Water Stewardship Minister Steve Ashton on
8 March 12th in the Winnipeg Free Press. And he
9 defined compensation that would be part of the
10 expansion of the Red River Floodway. And he
11 identified that this new law is to compensate
12 landowners who were flooded by the operation of the
13 Winnipeg Floodway. And the reason I'm going to do
14 this is I just want to get a sense from PCN if the
15 same type of information is contained in Hydro's
16 definition of adverse effects that is contained in
17 the Northern Flood Agreement that pertains to PCN?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to forewarn you
19 that you did that the other day and this could be
20 repetitious, especially if you are going to make a
21 presentation on the issue. If you want to ask
22 questions on the issue, fine.
23 MR. MCIVOR: Mr. Chairman, I think the other
24 day, Mr. Adams indicated that there are five Northern
25 Flood principles, Northern Flood Agreement principles
2234
1 plus 13 supplemental agreements to the Northern Flood
2 Agreement and he also indicated that there is
3 variation from agreement to agreement on what the
4 definition of adverse effects is. So I am just
5 trying to get a sense from PCN on whether or not the
6 definition that the new Water Stewardship Minister
7 had indicated would be available to the floodway
8 folks that might be affected as a result of the
9 expansion. And it's not going to take long.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Ask the question.
11 MR. MCIVOR: Okay. The Minister indicated
12 that all those affected including home-owners, farms,
13 businesses, non-profit organizations and local
14 authorities affected by artificial flooding will
15 receive financial assistance on top of the assistance
16 that's available under the federal/provincial
17 disaster assistance programs. Compensation claims
18 under the new law would still be made through the
19 disaster assistance appeal board which adjudicate all
20 claims made for federal and provincial disaster
21 assistance. The compensation will include all damage
22 to real or personal property or property destroyed or
23 made inoperable, less useful, less valuable, less
24 productive or hazardous to health, economic losses,
25 including wages, salary or business income would also
2235
1 be covered. In addition to that, Minister Ashton
2 added there will be no claims ceiling and no
3 deductible for claims under the new Act.
4 Could you maybe just enlighten me as to what
5 PCN's adverse effects, if that's something that is
6 comparable, equal?
7 MS. KEMPTON: A couple of things. Just to be
8 clear, the Pimicikamak's interpretation of the
9 Northern Flood Agreement is not about compensation.
10 That word gets thrown around, first of all, as if
11 it's a dirty word and it gets people thinking about
12 money and it doesn't come down to that. It is about
13 remediation first. Fix up what you've done, please,
14 to the maximum possible extent. And a lot of it, as
15 Mr. Osborne said to Ms. Whelan Enns, a lot can be
16 done to fix up damage. Some of it is permanent. We
17 do accept that. Everybody has to. But where there
18 is a will, a lot can be done.
19 Second, beyond remediation is mitigation.
20 Minimize ongoing effects to the maximum possible
21 extent. Only when those two avenues are not
22 possible, scientifically possible does one turn to
23 compensation. That is, the thing is wrecked. We've
24 ruined your lands. We've ruined your waters. We've
25 ruined your lives. We've done everything we can to
2236
1 fix them up. We've done everything we can to
2 minimize ongoing day-to-day impacts. That's not
3 what's happening. That's the vision. And beyond
4 those, what can't be fixed and what can't be
5 mitigated would be compensation. In that order.
6 That is Pimicikamak's vision. That is why it
7 says this isn't about money, it's about cleaning up
8 the mess. Healing a nation. Healing a people.
9 Healing the lands and healing the waters.
10 The definition of adverse effects in the
11 Northern Flood Agreement is not specifically defined.
12 It can't have been, and the Northern Flood Agreement
13 at the beginning acknowledges that, that all adverse
14 effects are not known, were not known at the time.
15 And as things would change and develop and impacts
16 would grow worse as they do with these kinds of
17 impacts over time, one cannot know what will happen
18 in the future. So there was no limit on them. There
19 was no definition that limited them. And in fact,
20 these are environmental and social impacts.
21 Environment is what it is. A people is what
22 it is as well. And because of that broad and liberal
23 interpretation that is part of the wording of the NFA
24 and by which it must be interpreted, the obligation
25 is on the three Crown parties, Manitoba Hydro,
2237
1 Manitoba and Canada to address this in a very
2 complete holistic way. There are no limits.
3 MR. MCIVOR: Okay. That's all I wanted to get
4 some information on. Thank you very much, Mr.
5 Chairman.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other questions?
7 MS. BRUYERE: I am Caroline Bruyere. I'm an
8 elder of Sagkeeng First Nation. I am also a direct
9 descendant of Chief Peguis and also the treaty
10 signer. I belong to the Prince family.
11 I am hearing here all the time of our lands
12 being negotiated, our resources being used for
13 commodities. We are the stewards of this land and we
14 made treaties and those treaties have treaty areas.
15 I hear that some of the communities that are
16 going to be affected come and speak here but that may
17 be only two or three. And also I said this before
18 too, I am very aware that, I said this before, that
19 whatever has been going on up north has also affected
20 our Lake Winnipeg. Our Lake Winnipeg does not drain
21 fast enough to clean itself up so therefore our
22 beaches, our water, our fish are not the same as they
23 used to be when I was a kid when I could see at the
24 tip of our point and see the fish and try and catch
25 the biggest one. And no longer can I do that, the
2238
1 fish doesn't taste the same.
2 But being the descendant of a treaty signer,
3 like I said, there are treaty areas and those treaty
4 areas encompass quite a bit of communities. And
5 without our treaties, there would be no Crown land.
6 And it often makes me wonder how come is it then we
7 are the last ones to be informed of any initiative
8 that has been thought of.
9 I know that our treaties have not been
10 honoured. We have been stuck to reservations
11 although we have vast areas of treaty areas.
12 My question to you is, Ms. Kempton, what is
13 the legal standing of our treaties at the
14 international level at the U.N.? How do you
15 understand that what is their status at the U.N.
16 since constantly they are not being fulfilled and
17 also we were not a part of the development or the
18 negotiation and implement of the Indian Act that was
19 just thrust on us but our treaties are supposed to be
20 as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the
21 grass grows.
22 MS. KEMPTON: I am not sure I can answer all
23 of that question. I can certainly -- look, the world
24 is structured by super powers and colonial interests
25 including at the U.N. and it's gross and it's
2239
1 unfortunate and it's what we face, what you face more
2 than I face everyday. But let's take a look at
3 what's happening here.
4 If I can bring this back to relevance to this
5 Commission to say that it's quite likely that as a
6 result of the fact that consultations in regard to
7 this project haven't yet and have not at all happened
8 on a treaty-wide basis, that more divide and concur
9 tended to happen. In other words, going to each
10 individual First Nation, each individual community,
11 each individual people, continue the process of
12 breaking apart and breaking up, if in Section 35
13 consultations or other things, the governments were
14 to recognize and honour these treaties as more than
15 pieces of paper and consult on a treaty-wide basis
16 about treaty and inherent rights, not about things
17 that you pointed out have nothing to do with that
18 like imposed Band destructure imposed by the Indian
19 Act by the Federal Government. If they were to do
20 this respecting treaty rights, inherent rights, on a
21 treaty-wide basis and beyond across treaties then
22 maybe we wouldn't be where we are today. Maybe we
23 wouldn't be dealing with more of this divide and
24 concur.
25 MS. BRUYERE: That is my point why I mentioned
2240
1 the Indian Act because I have also heard that under
2 the Indian Act voting regulations that the referendum
3 will be taken and we are entitled to develop our own
4 laws which we have had for centuries. And I think
5 it's about time that we start allowing us to practise
6 our own cultural activities, our own laws governing
7 our ways of maintaining our Mother Earth.
8 So with that, I think I would ask other people
9 that are more knowledgeable about the treaties there,
10 I know that there are a bunch of lawyers in the room,
11 maybe they would best address the issue of my
12 concern. Maybe Mr. Mayer could enlighten us on the
13 value of our treaties. It seems to me I seem to lack
14 the understanding that my treaties are valuable.
15 Maybe he can enlighten me and tell me, oh yes, they
16 are. Thank you.
17 MR. OSBORNE: I may want to say something to
18 the lady in reference to her question as a whole. If
19 we take a look at some, if not all, of the Supreme
20 Court rulings in regards to consultation, it clearly
21 spells out that consultation is a two-way street. In
22 my opinion, what that means is that we must all be
23 consulted. Consulted meaning we must all be told if
24 and whenever our treaty and our Aboriginal rights are
25 going to be infringed upon either by an industry or
2241
1 by a government or by anybody, we must be made known.
2 Consultation is not selecting randomly a
3 couple of communities and telling them this is what's
4 happening, this is what's coming when only a few
5 people attend. Consultation is not randomly
6 selecting five or six elders and attending meetings
7 here and there. When it comes to treaty rights, as I
8 know, no Band, let alone the Chief and Council of the
9 Band, have any right to deal with treaty and/or
10 Aboriginal rights.
11 And as I know it, no Band on an individual
12 basis have the right to deal with treaty and
13 Aboriginal rights because treaties are collective
14 rights. Treaties are for each and every one of us
15 that is sitting here and we have the right to be
16 informed. We have the right to ask the questions.
17 We have the right to stand up for our own rights and
18 not be threatened or intimidated by the Chief and
19 Council of the Band when in fact, by virtue of a
20 legal opinion that we did through Myers & Weinberg
21 law firm say the Chief of the Band is merely a truant
22 officer. They have the authority to enact by-laws.
23 They have the authority to get into contracts. They
24 have the authority that are very limited. Nowhere in
25 that legal opinion did I read said they had the right
2242
1 to deal with treaty and Aboriginal rights let alone
2 sell them without your consent and against your will.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: No more questions?
4 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Good afternoon. My name is
5 Gordon Wapaskokimaw. I am from Cree territory, North
6 America. I am here under and by command of the woman
7 to address some very important issues that are being
8 talked about in this forum regarding jurisdiction to
9 our tribal lands, our water, our resources as the
10 North American Indian of this continent.
11 Now my question is as I'm working towards it,
12 I want to elaborate a little bit the basis of my
13 question so you'll understand exactly where I'm
14 coming from. I want to focus on one agreement that
15 has affected most Bands, namely five anyway, and what
16 the Constitution of Canada calls Northern Manitoba.
17 We know it as otherwise.
18 I wanted to ask if there was a review done on
19 the documentation of the Northern Flood Agreement and
20 the instruments of law that was used in there and the
21 intent of the Northern Flood Agreement because to my
22 understanding and what I understand of the treaty and
23 the stipulations of treaty under international law,
24 consent must be first had and obtained from an Indian
25 regarding his tribal lands, water and everything else
2243
1 that's included in this Continent of North America.
2 Where did Manitoba Hydro and what was the
3 intent of the Northern Flood Agreement? Was it to
4 ratify the 1930 Natural Resource Transfer Agreement.
5 And the reason why I question that is because when
6 treaties were signed in the Treaty 5 area with the
7 various Bands and your Majesty the Queen sent
8 commissioners to our land to represent and speak for
9 her, there was strict orders given to them that they
10 must have consent from the Indian in writing. And it
11 also stipulates in Treaty 5 and it provided however
12 Her Majesty reserves the right to deal with any
13 settlers within the bounds of any reserves reserved
14 for Indians for anything that they might need for
15 compensation with their consent first had and
16 obtained.
17 When the Federal Government and the Provincial
18 Government sat down to make the Natural Resource
19 Transfer Agreement, were there any Indians present
20 there to consent to that deal? And that is why I
21 came. And one of the reasons and one of the
22 questions, and I have another one before I close,
23 was there any with the consultation that was sent by
24 Manitoba Hydro when you're dealing with a treaty
25 Indian and the stipulations in a treaty, it can be a
2244
1 one-sided interpretation of treaty.
2 Both parties have to have the same
3 understanding of a treaty because you're dealing with
4 a nation. You're dealing with a signatory Indian
5 that knows the stipulations of an international
6 treaty. If they are not satisfied with the honesty
7 and expression and the explaining the conditions and
8 the consequences of an agreement made by a secondary
9 government in the Constitution of Canada using
10 foreign law, that Indian has every right to protect
11 his rights.
12 That is why I am asking you today and I'm
13 asking you too, ma'am, if I may, was there any
14 procedures done like in that forum when that NFA was
15 being looked at and some way it was ratified?
16 MR. OSBORNE: I can generally say there were a
17 number of people that agreed to the Northern Flood
18 Agreement in the Community of Cross Lake but I can't
19 specifically say how many of these people actually
20 agreed to that Northern Flood Agreement.
21 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Okay. And the other thing
22 is I wanted to know, the implementation of the
23 democratic process that was used to ratify an
24 agreement under a treaty process and the treaty
25 stipulations, it states anything that is offered to
2245
1 the treaty Indian is done by consensus. That means
2 the elective system. The democratic process does not
3 apply to an international agreement when it comes to
4 an Indian, a treaty Indian that is a signatory to a
5 treaty. He and only he commanded by the woman can
6 make a decision whether they accept or not and they
7 can speak for themselves and everyone has to agree.
8 If one agrees -- or doesn't agree, let's say if there
9 was 100 people here and they had a vote and 99 per
10 cent of them said yes, we will take the Wuskwatim
11 project, if a treaty Indian, under with the proper
12 credentials and following the stipulations of a
13 treaty, says no, then it's no. That's what I was
14 going to question. Was it done in that fashion?
15 MR. OSBORNE: You mean the Northern Flood
16 Agreement?
17 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: That one and any other
18 agreement that's introduced by the Governments of
19 Canada. But mainly I guess we're talking about
20 Northern Flood Agreement and other ones that have
21 derived from the Northern Flood Agreement namely we
22 will call maybe an Agreement in Principle was in
23 place, maybe Summary of Understanding was in place,
24 all those, Treaty Land Entitlement, that kind of
25 stuff, was it done in that fashion?
2246
1 MS. KEMPTON: We can't speak to that.
2 Pimicikamak has not abrogated or lost any of its
3 inherent rights. I think the focus should be here on
4 who you are, where you were born, what your rights
5 are on being born as an indigenous people that
6 happens to have been born in Canada. And I think
7 that's the real issue here.
8 I can't speak to how that's gotten screwed up
9 by the imposition of attitudes, laws and systems from
10 others who have oppressed you and indigenous peoples
11 across North America and continue to do so. I don't
12 know what's happening and I can't legitimately speak
13 to what's happening in other communities and other
14 nations.
15 I can tell you that Pimicikamak's vision, view
16 is of inherent, its inherent Creator granted rights
17 and nothing ever ever has or ever will take those
18 away. That is its position today. It was its
19 position from the time beyond memory and it will be
20 its position long after this Commission and all of
21 these people in this room go away.
22 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: I thank you for giving me
23 the opportunity to come and sit here what I've been
24 commanded to do. And also in the future when we hold
25 our meetings, every meeting we hold, our gathering is
2247
1 for the unborn. That's who we speak for. That's who
2 I'm speaking for when I'm speaking here.
3 So from this day forth, for the record, you
4 cannot go back to where you came from and say we were
5 never informed or notified about treaty stipulations
6 to be met. Thank you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. No further
8 questions? Sir, do you have a question?
9 MR. ADKINS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the
10 Commission. My name is Bob Adkins. I'm legal
11 counsel. I act for Manitoba Hydro in many matters.
12 I have in fact appeared initially before this
13 Commission on the Pimicikamak motion that was brought
14 last fall. And I have been involved in the Article 9
15 processes. I am here to ask a few questions on
16 behalf of Manitoba Hydro of Ms. Kempton if that will
17 be acceptable.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
19 MR. ADKINS: Ms. Kempton, I want to start by
20 referring to the presentation that you made and I
21 want to ask you if you have any professional
22 qualifications other than that as a lawyer?
23 MS. KEMPTON: Sorry, what's the relevance of
24 your question?
25 MR. ADKINS: You've made --
2248
1 MS. KEMPTON: How far back do you want me to
2 go?
3 MR. ADKINS: Well, you've made a presentation
4 to this Commission and to the people here in which
5 there are many opinions that have been expressed.
6 I'm wondering what professional qualifications,
7 expertise or experience that you have in relation to
8 those statements?
9 MS. KEMPTON: Sorry, that's not a relevant or
10 appropriate question. These are not my words, these
11 are words, I am acting on behalf of Pimicikamak, my
12 client.
13 MR. ADKINS: So in effect, the opinions that
14 you were expressing, they were not your opinions,
15 they are the opinions of your client?
16 MS. KEMPTON: Of course, as any legal counsel
17 acting for their client.
18 MR. ADKINS: I appreciate that, thank you.
19 Ms. Kempton, you were present at the beginning of the
20 hearings, if my recollection is correct, before this
21 Commission, not talking about the motion but when the
22 hearing started in this room; am I correct in that?
23 MS. KEMPTON: I was present for part of the
24 first day.
25 MR. ADKINS: Okay. That was the period of
2249
1 time in which systems operations were being
2 discussed. Do you recall that?
3 MS. KEMPTON: Yes, I do.
4 MR. ADKINS: My understanding is that systems
5 operations and the potential effects of systems
6 operations is key to Pimicikamak's concerns; am I
7 correct in that?
8 MS. KEMPTON: Systems operations and systems
9 impacts, that's correct.
10 MR. ADKINS: Did you stay and listen to the
11 evidence that was presented by Mr. Dave Cormie on
12 behalf of Manitoba Hydro and systems impacts?
13 MS. KEMPTON: I don't know the names of the
14 people who were presenting. I stayed for part of the
15 day as I said. Sorry, I don't know, recognize, you
16 know, who was there, who was not there. If I wasn't
17 here, I have been reviewing transcripts, reviewing
18 all the evidence and consulting with energy experts.
19 MR. ADKINS: There were opportunities
20 available at that time to ask questions of Manitoba
21 Hydro experts in connection with systems operations.
22 Did you avail yourself of those opportunities?
23 MS. KEMPTON: Sir, as I have stated
24 repeatedly, the fact that we're here is a miracle.
25 We have no resources. We had none for me to appear
2250
1 on that day. We have none for me to appear today.
2 Effectively, I won't go any further than that but to
3 say we have done beyond what is reasonable to
4 participate in this hearing.
5 If Manitoba Hydro, however, would like to
6 provide further participant funding, I'd be happy to
7 raise those questions now or later. I'm sure my
8 clients would, too.
9 MR. ADKINS: So the answer to the question I
10 asked you is no, you did not avail yourself of asking
11 any questions?
12 MS. KEMPTON: I take objection to your word
13 "avail". I did not have the opportunity to, no.
14 MR. ADKINS: You were here. You left the room
15 but you didn't take the opportunity --
16 MS. KEMPTON: Sir, it's really not the
17 business of you or this Commission as to the other
18 business that brought me to Manitoba.
19 MR. ADKINS: Have you had the opportunity to
20 review the material after the fact that was presented
21 and the presentation that was made on systems
22 operations?
23 MS. KEMPTON: I have reviewed that material.
24 MR. ADKINS: You haven't referred to or made
25 any comment in your submission today with respect to
2251
1 that material?
2 MS. KEMPTON: I certainly did. Again, I am
3 acting on behalf of my client. The purpose here
4 today in part and large part because very limited or
5 non-existent resources was to make a summary
6 statement on Pimicikamak's position. We are not in
7 the position to do anything further. We rely upon
8 the evidence we've given to date. We rely upon the
9 transcripts and the evidence given by others in
10 coming to the position that we did today and making
11 the statements we did today. That's it. That's what
12 we're doing here.
13 MR. ADKINS: What I'm getting at is there was
14 no reference made by you to any of the material that
15 was presented by Mr. Cormie or indeed Manitoba Hydro
16 on system effects that identified issues and said
17 that that's incorrect or inaccurate or wrong; am I
18 correct in that?
19 MS. KEMPTON: We did make reference not to
20 specific pages or to specific quotes, we made
21 reference to the fact of all those pages and what
22 you've said or what Hydro has said is finally
23 acknowledged that there will be system impacts and
24 that my client, Pimicikamak, is most likely to be
25 affected by those but that you're brushing them off
2252
1 as imperceptible. Beyond that, our position is there
2 is nothing there to comment on. That's the point.
3 MR. ADKINS: You referenced the minutes or
4 records being kept of the Article 9 process and you
5 indicated that they were not necessarily concurred in
6 by Pimicikamak; am I correct in that?
7 MS. KEMPTON: That's correct. The notes were
8 not received, as I understand it, by counsel or by
9 Pimicikamak until they were submitted to the CEC.
10 The first time they have seen them and therefore they
11 weren't, my understanding is, concurred with or
12 approved as "official minutes" or anything like that
13 at all.
14 MR. ADKINS: Okay. Just so I'm clear on this
15 and I'd like to just check with you on some of the
16 issues here. You are not denying, are you, that
17 there has been a process in September of 2001 with
18 Manitoba Hydro and Pimicikamak representing the Cross
19 Lake First Nation in relation to the potential
20 effects of Wuskwatim?
21 MS. KEMPTON: I am not legal counsel for
22 Pimicikamak in that process. I am generally familiar
23 with it. I've been apprised of generally what's
24 happened in it and hasn't and I have received some
25 notes and other things. But I do not feel it's fair
2253
1 to my client to speak on the specifics of that
2 process including specifically what I might and might
3 not have started. I am not their legal counsel
4 specifically on Article 9 consultations. So that
5 would not be fair.
6 MS. KEMPTON: I just want to ensure that you
7 made the statement that Pimicikamak does not
8 necessarily accept what's in the minutes and I'm just
9 trying to ascertain exactly, to your knowledge, and
10 obviously you're the person here testifying, to your
11 knowledge, what is or is not accepted. So you are
12 saying you don't know or that you don't feel it's
13 fair to comment on whether or not that process has
14 been going on since September of 2001?
15 MS. KEMPTON: The only point -- I'm really not
16 sure why this is -- that so much detail is being put
17 to this. The only point I'm making is that as those
18 were not approved minutes, as I am informed by my
19 client they were not approved minutes, they were not
20 something that Pimicikamak had ever seen before, I
21 raised the points today and this is, sorry, not
22 testimony but a statement on behalf of my client, as
23 to the fact that these aren't approved minutes and
24 they are not something that my client would have or
25 does concur with. Beyond that, no, I am not in a
2254
1 position to speak to the issues.
2 If and when Manitoba Hydro sits down with my
3 client to try to work out in this very separate
4 process something called approved minutes, then
5 that's your business to do with my client and it's my
6 client's business to do with you. The point is this,
7 whatever you want to call them, are notes from George
8 Remple cannot be relied upon for the truth of their
9 content because they are not minutes.
10 MR. ADKINS: Ms. Kempton, I have a copy of the
11 minutes that were in fact submitted. They are dated
12 January 27, 2004. I take it that your client has had
13 the opportunity to read those minutes before today?
14 MS. KEMPTON: Again, Mr. Adkins, those are not
15 minutes, okay. Minutes are an official record of a
16 meeting by which parties concur, either vote on or
17 approve somehow, and they are not minutes. My client
18 I don't -- my client has had a chance to review them
19 through other legal counsel and that's all I am
20 prepared to say at this point. If you want to take
21 this up with my client separately -- the only point
22 that's relevant here is just what I've said. They
23 are not minutes, they were not approved by my client,
24 therefore, they cannot be treated as officially
25 approved or otherwise any kind of minutes for that
2255
1 meeting. They cannot be relied upon for the truth of
2 their contents. That's full stop. That's my point.
3 Anything else, deal with it in an Article 9
4 consultation, please.
5 MR. ADKINS: Fortunately you're here today and
6 this is before the Commission. And the question of
7 that document, if you don't want to refer to it as
8 minutes, but the notes of what at least Mr. Remple
9 believed transpired at that meeting occurred, you put
10 that in issue in terms of it not being accepted so I
11 want to follow this up. Has there been anything in
12 those notes that you have been advised of that is
13 inaccurate?
14 MS. KEMPTON: First of all, I or my client am
15 not putting this in issue, your client raised it.
16 You put it in issue. We did not. We are simply
17 responding to that to the extent that I'm going to
18 do. Again, the only point is that they were not
19 approved. This is not the forum today to sit here
20 and go over them in minute detail to either seek
21 approval of my client or not. That is for another
22 process. At the time they were presented and as I
23 sit here today before this Commission, they cannot be
24 relied upon for the truth of their contents because
25 they are not officially approved minutes. That's it.
2256
1 I'll repeat that as however many times you'd like me
2 to.
3 MR. ADKINS: Thank you. I appreciate you
4 repeating it. I am here. I've heard the evidence
5 that was given. I heard Vice-Chief Osborne indicate
6 that it's appropriate for a developer to have an open
7 and honest dialogue in terms of a future development.
8 And we're referencing a process that occurred,
9 admittedly apart from this particular process as in
10 fact the public involvement process also occurred
11 apart from this particular process, where there had
12 been exchanges and where there had been notes kept,
13 whether they are minutes or not, and exchanged or at
14 least provided. And I'm trying to determine whether
15 or not there are any issues of accuracy that you are
16 aware of. And if you are not, you can simply say no
17 or you can go through the speech that you've given
18 the last few times. I don't particularly care.
19 MS. KEMPTON: Beyond what I've said today is,
20 in my opinion, at this stage because I didn't come,
21 certainly my client didn't come prepared to answer
22 this kind of question. I don't consider it relevant.
23 The only thing I consider relevant is what I've
24 already said.
25 So beyond that, no, I am not prepared to
2257
1 answer it. And as far as I am concerned, that's
2 privileged until my client decides to disclose that
3 information to Hydro.
4 MR. ADKINS: Okay. Thank you. I do want to
5 ask a few more questions specifically on this
6 particular process. Are you denying or do you know
7 if your client denies or do you have any idea whether
8 or not the experts that you had retained that were
9 going to, at some point in time, do something in this
10 process, as Mr. McCullough and Mr. Goodman in fact
11 have been involved in the processes with Manitoba
12 Hydro and the Province of Manitoba under Article 9 of
13 the Northern Flood Agreement. Are you aware of that?
14 MS. KEMPTON: I am aware that the experts have
15 been involved. Again, because I am not legal counsel
16 on that, I can't speak to the specifics.
17 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware that they in effect
18 have attended meetings with representatives of
19 Manitoba Hydro and reviewed all sorts of computer
20 analyses and computer projections and runs to try to
21 analyze the potential system effects of Wuskwatim?
22 MS. KEMPTON: If I can leap ahead maybe
23 several steps here. I do know and in fact I will say
24 this because I know that this isn't privileged, it's
25 part of I guess a public record in another way. The
2258
1 energy experts acting on behalf of my client have
2 been asking and pushing on behalf of my client for a
3 long time to get full disclosure of more than again
4 sort of the surface, you know, this is the surface
5 and please just accept this. I believe that they
6 have referred to the information they have and don't
7 have in regard to how Hydro reaches its economic
8 conclusions as a black box. They have done so in
9 this proceeding as well. Nothing that has happened
10 or that is reflected in those minutes changes that
11 assessment by them.
12 They have reviewed a surface level, a surface
13 treatment. They have not been able to get at the
14 data, the methodology and all kinds of stuff behind
15 it and, therefore, they still are in a position of
16 not being able to test Hydro's assertions about
17 economics. I do know that and it's also stated in
18 this proceeding by those experts. Nothing, nothing
19 either that meeting or otherwise has changed in that
20 regard.
21 MR. ADKINS: My understanding is that nothing
22 has been stated by those experts in those proceedings
23 and there is no evidence on any of those points and I
24 take exception to your suggestion that there is. But
25 let me go on with my questions.
2259
1 I want to find out, my understanding is that
2 technical meetings occurred on a couple of occasions
3 but specifically, there was one on June 26, 2003.
4 Are you aware of that meeting having occurred?
5 MS. KEMPTON: Sorry, I didn't hear you.
6 MR. ADKINS: Are you aware of that meeting
7 amongst the technical experts, those retained by
8 Pimicikamak and those in fact that are employed by
9 Manitoba Hydro and plus consultants employed by
10 Manitoba Hydro, that there was a technical meeting in
11 June 26, 2003? Are you aware of that?
12 MS. KEMPTON: I am aware of that.
13 MR. ADKINS: And are you aware that the
14 consultant, Mr. Goodman, a consultant retained by
15 Pimicikamak, indicated that in fact in his view that
16 meeting on June 26, 2003 had been a good meeting?
17 MS. KEMPTON: No, I am not aware of that. And
18 again, I'd like to know where you are going with
19 this. I answered the issues raised by Manitoba Hydro
20 about the Article 9 process -- I felt wholly
21 inappropriate here -- as if to suggest somehow that
22 that obviates the need for the CEC to do its job. I
23 don't really know what your intent or Hydro's intent
24 in bringing that information forward was. I refuted
25 it to the extent, as I've said before, you cannot
2260
1 rely on what was submitted for the truth of its
2 contents. I fail to see the relevance of this here
3 again today.
4 If you want to go through a litany of dates
5 and who said what and all the rest of it, I am not in
6 the position to comment on that today.
7 MR. ADKINS: Okay. Thank you. You're the
8 person testifying or here --
9 MS. KEMPTON: I am here --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, can I interrupt.
11 Ms. Kempton, you are not to make any speeches at this
12 point. If you don't want to answer the question,
13 that's up to you. But I will appreciate it if the
14 counsel asks his questions and if you'll make the
15 answers, if you provide the answers. Thank you.
16 MS. KEMPTON: Yes, I was just about to provide
17 an answer to again state I am not here as legal
18 counsel to Pimicikamak in Article 9, I am legal
19 counsel to Pimicikamak in the CEC proceeding. Issues
20 about this proceeding and what's happened in regard
21 to this proceeding are obviously quite relevant. I
22 am prepared, to the extent that I am able and that
23 it's appropriate, to answer any such questions. I am
24 not -- again, legal counsel and my client are
25 available, I'm sure, to deal with Manitoba Hydro and
2261
1 others in regard to the Article 9 process in that
2 process. That's not this process.
3 MR. ADKINS: Ms. Kempton, if I can --
4 MR. MAYER: Excuse me for a moment. Ms.
5 Kempton, these particular minutes are in fact part of
6 these proceedings, or whether they are minutes or
7 not. And we did hear evidence, whether you were here
8 or not, in these proceedings about certain technical
9 matters took place between Manitoba Hydro, and I
10 didn't catch the names at the time and I now realize
11 they are the same two experts that you have filed
12 affidavits from on the September 20th hearing.
13 So quite frankly, and I don't think any
14 members of the Commission will disagree with me,
15 these are matters properly before this Commission.
16 You are the person testifying on behalf of
17 Pimicikamak. You -- and you used to be Vice-Chief
18 Osborne, is it still? Yes. -- are here before this
19 Commission to give evidence. These questions they
20 arise out of evidence that is before the Commission.
21 I'm sorry, I believe the questions are proper and
22 ought to be answered.
23 MS. KEMPTON: That's fine. Again, be clear.
24 Hydro brought this evidence, so-called, forward of
25 those notes taken at the meeting to ensure that there
2262
1 was no misinterpretation or misunderstanding of
2 Pimicikamak's position on these and therefore how the
3 Commission should view this. I raised it today.
4 That is the only thing that, other than what I've
5 spoken to and my knowledge of Ian Goodman and Robert
6 McCullough's position to date on what they had been
7 asking for and what they have and haven't gotten,
8 that is all that I know.
9 If you're suggesting therefore I'm not
10 well-prepared to deal with these questions, fine.
11 That's fine. Then blame me for that. I really can't
12 speak to what I don't know. I have spoken to what I
13 do know. I know there have been some exchanges but I
14 know -- look, why would my client be here today, ask
15 me to be here today to raise issues about lack of --
16 fundamental lack of disclosure? Why would we waste
17 anybody's time doing that, especially my clients.
18 It's not like they don't have other survival crises
19 to deal with if we got the information we needed
20 somewhere else. We don't.
21 MR. ADKINS: Ms. Kempton, the reason I am
22 asking you these questions is that you've clearly
23 made the statement that Manitoba Hydro has simply
24 made bare assertions as to system impacts. I do not
25 think that's a fair characterization of what Manitoba
2263
1 Hydro has done and I think Manitoba Hydro is entitled
2 to ask you questions in relation to the basis for
3 your statement that these are just bare assertions.
4 And I refer you to the evidence of Manitoba
5 Hydro presented in the supplementary filings in
6 relation to system impacts. I refer you to the
7 evidence that was brought forward before this
8 Commission with Mr. Dave Cormie who is a
9 well-respected person in terms of system operations
10 who was present and made that presentation and was
11 here for two weeks after that. He underwent
12 cross-examination by the Board. He underwent
13 cross-examination by counsel for the Board and it was
14 tested again and again in that process. So that was
15 there.
16 You were present for part of the morning on
17 the first day. You absented yourself after that.
18 That's your decision, your basis, I don't have any
19 question of that. But I think I am entitled to ask
20 you questions about this issue and I intend to
21 proceed.
22 I now want to ask you whether or not you have
23 any basis to deny that Mr. Goodman, the person
24 retained by Pimicikamak to review this, indicated at
25 the meeting on June 27th, 2004 -- or sorry, the
2264
1 minute that's referred to in the document dated
2 January 27, 2004, that in fact the technical
3 information provided to him at the technical meeting
4 in June 26, 2003 had been good information and it had
5 been useful. Do you have any basis to deny that that
6 statement was made by Mr. Goodman at a meeting I was
7 present at?
8 MS. KEMPTON: If you would like to have Mr.
9 Goodman come forward to speak to this, again, some
10 resources are going to have to be made available for
11 that. I don't have any basis on which to accept it
12 nor do I have a particular basis on which to deny it.
13 I do know that my client takes issue with those notes
14 in the context. They feel that they are more
15 positively spun and that they are not entirely
16 accurate. Has the work been done to review them with
17 a fine tooth comb with Manitoba Hydro? No.
18 MR. ADKINS: Thank you. I want to then ask
19 you this question. Do you have any basis to deny
20 that Mr. Goodman indicated at that meeting, which is
21 reported in the document dated January 27, 2004, that
22 he had looked at the date that had been provided to
23 him by Manitoba Hydro and that it seemed reasonable
24 to him?
25 MS. KEMPTON: Same answer.
2265
1 MR. ADKINS: Okay. And do you have any basis
2 to deny that at that meeting that's reported in
3 January 27, 2004, that Mr. Goodman indicated that he
4 does not doubt the truthfulness of Manitoba Hydro's
5 representatives with whom he's been dealing?
6 MS. KEMPTON: Again, same answer. And again,
7 I'd like to point out that you can go through that
8 whole entire document. My client takes issue with it
9 in its context and how it's spun. Obviously again, I
10 cannot speak to any particular item. That is not my
11 job here today. But I will also point out that
12 whatever might end up being agreed to by my client,
13 including through Mr. Goodman and Manitoba Hydro, in
14 regard to what was and wasn't said at that meeting
15 and how to proceed in Article 9 from here does not
16 answer the question that we've raised and the issues
17 we've raised here. That doesn't go actually to the
18 minimalization or the brushing aside of system
19 impacts. As I understand it, that wasn't and isn't
20 what those notes are about but more about the
21 economic modelling full stop.
22 MR. ADKINS: In fact, I agree with you that
23 these minutes, as such, are simply a record or these
24 documents are simply a record of what has transpired
25 elsewhere. But there was evidence viva voce direct
2266
1 evidence brought forward by experts at Manitoba Hydro
2 at this Commission dealing specifically with this
3 issue and Pimicikamak has centred itself from that
4 process.
5 MS. KEMPTON: Again, we had no choice. Lack
6 of opportunity, lack of opportunity wasn't a choice.
7 MR. ADKINS: Just again, referring to the
8 document January 27, 2004, do you deny that your
9 expert or Pimicikamak's expert, Mr. Goodman,
10 indicated that there is no dispute as to the validity
11 of the technical information used by Manitoba Hydro
12 such as the rating curve assumptions?
13 MS. KEMPTON: Same answer.
14 MR. ADKINS: Thank you. Do you have any basis
15 to deny that Mr. Goodman also advised that Manitoba
16 Hydro's explanations of the system and of the splash
17 model makes sense?
18 MS. KEMPTON: Same answer.
19 MR. ADKINS: Thank you. Do you have any basis
20 to deny that Mr. Goodman also indicated that he
21 believed that the changes in systems operations are
22 likely to be small and that he understood the likely
23 directionality of those changes?
24 MS. KEMPTON: Again, same answer, same answer,
25 same answer, same answer. If you're trying to get
2267
1 this on the record, that's fine. I will simply have
2 to tell you in regard to specifics, it's the same
3 answer.
4 MR. ADKINS: This is already on the record.
5 It forms part of these processes. I'm trying to give
6 you an opportunity to say if you dispute this, tell
7 me where. If not, fine. But I don't want to leave
8 this with the bare statement that somehow this record
9 is inaccurate. So I'm asking these questions because
10 I think it's important. I think Manitoba Hydro is
11 entitled to that.
12 MS. KEMPTON: Mr. Adkins, I have said that I
13 cannot speak to the specifics. My client hasn't had
14 the opportunity to go over this with its legal
15 counsel and then again with Hydro as to the accuracy
16 or not of those. You raised them. You raised these,
17 presented them to the CEC without notice to my client
18 or to legal counsel that was involved. There has
19 been no opportunity to deal with them yet. So again,
20 I'm going to sit here and say same answer. That's
21 fine, you can take up everybody's time but that's all
22 I'm going to be able to say.
23 MR. ADKINS: Thank you. Ms. Kempton, my
24 understanding --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adkins, perhaps this is an
2268
1 appropriate time to, I see that you have more
2 questions, that we take a short break. It is well
3 past three o'clock at which time we were supposed to
4 have a break. And I know for technical purposes, the
5 Court Reporters need to be changed at certain times.
6 MR. ADKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7
8 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:18 P.M. AND
9 RECONVENED AT 3:30 P.M.)
10
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before the break,
12 I interrupted a question that you were about to
13 ask, sir. I guess you can proceed.
14 MR. ADKINS: Mr. Chairman, I have had
15 an opportunity to reflect. I believe in fact the
16 questions that I can fruitfully ask have been
17 answered, and I appreciate the time. We will
18 conclude our cross-examination.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 Mr. Sargeant.
21 MR. SARGEANT: Ms. Kempton, I just
22 have a question that might help us in our
23 deliberations when we get to that stage.
24 I noted that Vice Chief Osborne, in
25 his opening comments, noted that Pimicikamak Cree
2269
1 Nation is not opposed to development. I also
2 noted that, I think your principal concern is a
3 lack of information, and then because of that, the
4 inability to come to full decisions. But if the
5 Commission is able to obtain information that
6 would establish that Wuskwatim would have no
7 effect on the territory of the Pimicikamak Cree
8 Nation, would PCN oppose the construction of
9 Wuskwatim?
10 MS. KEMPTON: At this stage -- look,
11 if the Commission or anyone else is able to get
12 full disclosure of the full extent of system
13 impacts and how they might affect my client and
14 others, that would be a wonderful thing. But I
15 just want to make sure that the Commission and
16 you, sir, are clear of what that means by logic,
17 and to Pimicikamak.
18 Adding Wuskwatim to an existing hydro
19 project without understanding what that existing
20 project is doing means that a whole whack of
21 information is required. Unfortunately, we all
22 sit here today, 25, 30 years after the hydro
23 project was first built, not knowing very much at
24 all. We know enough to know that there have been
25 catastrophic impacts, but we don't know how they
2270
1 interact together, how they interact with the
2 ecosystems, and how best to manage them. We are
3 talking about a substantial amount of information.
4 Before you add a drop of liquid to a glass of
5 water, you have to know what those things are and
6 how they are going to interact together. We don't
7 know that.
8 We have suggested that, again, this
9 proceeding would have to be a lot bigger, a lot
10 longer, require a lot more effort and a lot more
11 resources, like has happened repeatedly in the
12 States, for instance, where they review much, much
13 larger industrial hydro projects than the one in
14 Manitoba. They do so successfully, even looking
15 at existing projects and impacts, and what might
16 happen to them in the future, as part of a licence
17 renewal process under FERC in the States. We know
18 it can be done.
19 We don't believe that to date this
20 process has shown itself adequate to the task.
21 And if it is going to be adequate to the task, a
22 huge undertaking would have to have happen. Not
23 anything unreasonable, but, I mean, huge in
24 relative terms compared to what is happening now
25 and what has happened to date.
2271
1 Again, if the Commission is prepared
2 to do that, that would be marvelous. It is what
3 Pimicikamak has been asking for all along.
4 Anything less than that is not going to provide
5 the information required to make fair and accurate
6 decisions or recommendations, including for my
7 client.
8 What Mr. Osborne spoke about today was
9 also to say that we have now been, it has now been
10 confirmed and acknowledged by Manitoba Hydro,
11 something that Pimicikamak has been saying all
12 along, which is that there will now, we know now
13 there will be some impacts on Cross Lake and to
14 Pimicikamak. And perhaps more than anything other
15 people in any other part of the system, there will
16 be those impacts.
17 Even if those impacts are small in
18 terms compared to what is existing on the ground
19 now, they are too much, if they are going to be
20 added to and compound even to what you might think
21 of by itself, without adding to the existing
22 impacts, by itself might be termed to be minimal
23 by people out here or people in the public, they
24 can not be considered to be minimal when they are
25 added to and compound a catastrophe.
2272
1 My client, Pimicikamak, William
2 Osborne sat here today and said, you can not do
3 that. On the other hand, if you can turn around
4 and show that those impacts might mitigate or help
5 reduce somehow the current existing catastrophic
6 effects, if that could ever be shown, then my
7 client of course wouldn't oppose something like
8 that.
9 We are not in a position, and neither
10 is the Commission, neither is anybody here, to
11 know whether or not that is going to be the case.
12 All we know is what we have been saying all along,
13 is that there will be further impacts on Cross
14 Lake and to my client. And if those impacts add
15 to the current harms, it is not acceptable at all
16 to my client, nor should it be acceptable to
17 anyone else.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There being
19 no further questions, thank you, Ms. Kempton.
20 MS. KEMPTON: Thank you.
21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, the next
22 presenters would be the representatives from the
23 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Troniak, would you
25 please introduce the members of your group, and
2273
1 then Mr. Grewar will swear them in.
2 MR. TRONIAK: I am Dennis Troniak,
3 counsel for the Displaced Residents of South
4 Indian Lake. With me are Carol Kobliski, who is a
5 spokesperson for a group called Justice Seekers.
6 She is to my immediate right. Beside her is
7 Joshua Flett, an elder from Nelson House. In the
8 middle is Mr. Gordon, and I hope I do justice to
9 his name, Wapaskokimaw. He will be interpreting
10 for Mr. Flett and for Mr. Frank Moore, who is
11 beside him, and he is an elder from Nelson House.
12 MR. GREWAR: Yes, I am just about to
13 get you to offer us a statement of truth, but I
14 wonder, could we get the spelling of your name,
15 Ms. Kobliski.
16 MS. KOBLISKI: K-O-B-L-I-S-K-I.
17 MR. GREWAR: Thank you. And it is
18 LeFlett?
19 MR. TRONIAK: No, it is Joshua Flett.
20 MR. GREWAR: I will ask you as a
21 group, are you aware that in Manitoba that it is
22 an offence to knowingly mislead this Commission?
23 Do you promise to tell just the truth in
24 proceedings before this Commission?
25
2274
1 DENNIS TRONIAK, CAROL KOBLISKI, JOSHUA FLETT,
2 FRANK MOORE: SWORN
3
4 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: My name is Gordon
5 Wapaskokimaw, and I swear by the Great Spirit that
6 what I will be talking about today in this
7 building will be the truth.
8 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir, and thank
9 you all.
10 MR. TRONIAK: I am counsel for the
11 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake, but I
12 would advise that our main submission will be made
13 by the association's president, Angus Dysart, when
14 the committee convenes in Thompson. So my
15 comments will be very brief this afternoon.
16 Our major role here, or goal, is to
17 give the Commission some information, or
18 information from people who are actually residing
19 in the community of Nelson House and who are being
20 affected by the project.
21 So, therefore, with the Commission's
22 permission I will turn it over to Ms. Kobliski
23 MR. GREWAR: Excuse me, there is no
24 presentation document for distribution or --
25 MR. TRONIAK: There is a submission,
2275
1 yes, we do have copies of that which are
2 available.
3 MR. GREWAR: If I could just obtain
4 those, if you could just wait one moment.
5 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: If I may just
6 direct your attention, regarding the documentation
7 that is being distributed, that is not part of
8 these two here, that is separate and apart.
9 Also, there was also mention earlier
10 that it was suggested that we have some kind of a
11 documentation to present to you, but because of me
12 being the interpreter and the spokesman for these
13 two gentleman, and because of where they are
14 coming from under a treaty process, verbal
15 transmission is recognized.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: It is acceptable.
17 Ms. Kobliski, you may proceed.
18 MS. KOBLISKI: Hello, my name is Carol
19 Kobliski and I am honoured to come here to the
20 Clean Environment Commission hearings on the
21 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Projects on
22 behalf of the traditional elders and many
23 concerned members of Nelson House.
24 I also have two traditional elders
25 from Nelson House here with me, Joshua Flett and
2276
1 Frank Moore. We are here to voice a number of
2 concerns that we have about the Wuskwatim project
3 and the process followed to date to fast track
4 decisions in our community regarding these
5 projects.
6 We have formed an association called
7 Justice Seekers of Nelson House to advocate for
8 fairness, openness, transparency, and honesty
9 about all aspects of the Wuskwatim projects. The
10 leadership of our Cree Nation must answer
11 questions in our community and to our people.
12 They must also provide clear information about the
13 business deals they are making with Manitoba
14 Hydro.
15 I would like to make it very clear
16 that the traditional elders and many members of
17 Nelson House have serious concerns and
18 reservations about the consequences and the
19 impacts of the Wuskwatim dam and the transmission
20 projects. Despite of what Jerry Primrose says, we
21 are not economic terrorists for expressing our
22 concerns. We live in Canada, a country that is
23 often referred to internationally as a place that
24 highly cherishes its tolerance, fairness, freedom
25 of speech and its protection of democratic rights.
2277
1 We, the Justice Seekers of NCN, are
2 fighting for these things for all members of NCN,
3 and it is very sad and unfortunate that we are
4 being branded. Many other concerned people who
5 are enduring very difficult circumstances because
6 they asked questions are with us in being branded.
7 We support the public request by the
8 Association for the Displaced Residents of South
9 Indian Lake that Chief Primrose publicly apologize
10 for his words and actions. This apology by Chief
11 Primrose should be made to the Clean Environment
12 Commission and to all of those who are
13 participating in these hearings. Comments like
14 these only serve to divide and alienate people
15 when we should be consulting and discussing our
16 differences in a mature and civilized manner.
17 I can assure you that Chief Primrose
18 was only speaking on behalf of himself and
19 possibly the Council of NCN, and not the people of
20 NCN. For the record, it was not the fur lobby but
21 Manitoba Hydro's Churchill River Diversion that
22 flooded out and destroyed many of the traplines in
23 Northern Manitoba, including those of NCN and
24 South Indian Lake families.
25 I would like to thank the Association
2278
1 for the Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake
2 for allowing me to present with them today. I
3 would also like to thank them and CASIL for their
4 strong cross examination of our leadership and
5 Manitoba Hydro earlier in these proceedings. The
6 NCN members and others of South Indian Lake and
7 those represented by the Association for Displaced
8 Residents of South Indian Lake, like many of us,
9 we have suffered greatly from past Hydro
10 development. The actions of Manitoba Hydro and
11 the Provincial and Federal Governments who either
12 allowed or encouraged hydro development to happen
13 in the name of profit should be held accountable.
14 The continuing environmental and socio-economic
15 impacts of these past projects were to be
16 addressed under the spirit, intent, and terms of
17 the Northern Flood Agreement, have largely been
18 ignored and not addressed. Manitoba Hydro and the
19 Government of Canada and Manitoba have embarked on
20 a policy of buying out their obligations at the
21 lowest price as possible. In Nelson House we
22 signed our buy-out agreement in 1996 after, as our
23 Chief has said, we were tired of fighting. But
24 even the master implementation agreement is not
25 being implemented. Where are the jobs and
2279
1 economic benefits that were to accompany our NFA
2 implementation agreement?
3 I would also like to thank Dr. Peter
4 Kulchyski for his presentation yesterday. I am
5 glad that a number of NCN members and the others
6 attending the hearing had the opportunity to hear
7 him speak. His comments were not paternalistic,
8 and it is unfortunate but not surprising that
9 Elvis Thomas is trying to place the race card to
10 try to deflect and deter questions of the
11 Wuskwatim project and the deals being made by
12 Chief Primrose, NCN Council, and Manitoba Hydro.
13 We came here today to the Wuskwatim
14 hearings with a number of other NCN band members
15 because we are concerned about our treaty and
16 Aboriginal rights, and the potential negative
17 social, cultural, and environmental impacts that
18 the Wuskwatim dam and transmission projects will
19 have on our people. We are also very concerned
20 with the proposed limited partnership agreement
21 that is being sold to our people. The sales pitch
22 includes the agreements itself and the things
23 being done to ensure that we agree to it.
24 We have grave concerns with how our
25 Chief and Council have been conducting themselves
2280
1 in this process. They are pushing these projects
2 too fast without proper and thorough consultation
3 with the people. Our people are not ready to
4 fully assess and understand the environmental,
5 social, and economic issues and changes that we
6 will face and have to deal with. We have not been
7 provided with financial information, and thank the
8 CEC for making more of that information available.
9 We also thank the CEC for asking and allowing
10 tough questions to be asked at these hearings on
11 the business deals being made between our Chief
12 and Council and Manitoba Hydro. These are of
13 interest to all Manitobans, not just NCN members.
14 We also strongly believe that our
15 Chief and Council are in a conflict of interest.
16 How can Chief and Council defend our Aboriginal
17 Treaty rights when they are co-proponents and
18 partners with Manitoba Hydro? Who will ensure
19 that our environment will be taken care of and
20 respected? These issues were raised in the
21 presentation by Dr. Peter Kulchyski yesterday.
22 The co-proponent status of NCN on this
23 project was not included in the Agreement in
24 Principle we voted on and being a co-proponent was
25 never put to or agreed to by NCN band members. I
2281
1 would like anyone to show me where in the AIP it
2 mentions co-proponent status for NCN. I feel that
3 this makes any claims of NCN being co-proponents
4 illegitimate. This question should have been put
5 to the NCN band membership in a clear and fair
6 manner to decide.
7 The consultation process followed to
8 date on Wuskwatim with NCN members has been
9 seriously deficient. Any true debate and
10 questioning of the Wuskwatim agreement and deals
11 between our Chief and Council and Manitoba Hydro
12 has been stifled. Resources provided to consult
13 with our people only go to those who appear to
14 support the project or who are paid to support
15 their position and try to sell it to other NCN
16 members. Information that has been provided has
17 been vague with non-commitments or obligations
18 qualified with words such as "may" or "can." For
19 example, the October 2003 Summary of Understanding
20 signed by NCN and Manitoba Hydro is non-binding
21 with no guarantees to protect the interests of
22 NCN.
23 The Summary of Understanding agreement
24 has been critically examined during these
25 hearings, and from my reading of the transcripts,
2282
1 has shown to be inadequate for a basis for any
2 final project development agreement to be properly
3 considered.
4 It is stated both in the document, and
5 confirmed during these hearings, that the Summary
6 of Understanding is non-binding but is expected to
7 generally be what the final project development
8 agreement will be. Elvis Thomas has stated that
9 all aspects of the project development agreement,
10 based on a Summary of Understanding, documents
11 will be shared and explained to all NCN members.
12 Is this the reason why the Wuskwatim Summary of
13 Understandings, and ultimately the final project
14 development agreement, are vague and general with
15 the real important binding agreements to be
16 negotiated after we vote, and presumably accept,
17 the project development agreement? All NCN band
18 members are entitled to know about and vote on all
19 agreements associated with the Wuskwatim
20 Generation and Transmission projects prior to
21 project approval and construction starts. We are
22 being asked to provide our consent to something
23 that will have tremendous impact on our lives and
24 futures without knowing what we are actually
25 agreeing to and the potential future consequences.
2283
1 We should have the opportunity to review and vote
2 on the project development agreement and all of
3 the associated agreements identified in the
4 Summary of Understanding at the same time, prior
5 to any approvals or licences provided for
6 Wuskwatim. We want this in writing from the
7 Province as we do not trust the word of Manitoba
8 Hydro and our Chief and Council.
9 There have not been any open band
10 meetings where people can openly debate the pros
11 and cons of the project or NCN being
12 co-proponents. No forum exists for NCN members to
13 have their voices and concerns heard. There has
14 not been a general band meeting in Nelson House
15 since July of 2003. Small meetings with isolated
16 groups and the wining and dining of individuals to
17 give them the hard sell without being allowed to
18 ask questions to me does not constitute an
19 adequate consultation. This clearly is not a
20 democratic process and was not intended to be one.
21 Many questions are being asked. Who
22 is protecting our Aboriginal Treaty rights? Why
23 is there no NFA compensation agreement in place
24 regarding Wuskwatim? Certainly our Chief and
25 Council and their lawyers who are negotiating with
2284
1 Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba are
2 not ensuring that our rights and best interests
3 are being protected? I am not a lawyer but in my
4 opinion it can be certainly strongly argued that
5 clearly, if not legally, morally, and ethically,
6 our Chief and Council and their legal counsel are
7 in conflict of interest.
8 We also need to know whether the
9 process followed for the Wuskwatim project is in
10 breach of the article 8.4.3. of the Nelson House
11 NFA master implementation agreement which states,
12 "It is in the best interest of Nelson
13 House and Hydro to fully assess and
14 finalize compensation issues prior to
15 formal commencement and any Federal or
16 Provincial environmental review and
17 licencing process."
18 This includes NCN band members,
19 including those at South Indian Lake and the
20 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake. We want
21 independent legal counsel, separate from Chief and
22 Council, to provide an independent legal opinion
23 as to whether our Chief and Council and Manitoba
24 Hydro are in breach of article 8.4.3.
25 Many of us are very concerned and
2285
1 troubled with the things being done and the money
2 being thrown around to try and buy support for
3 this project. The process and action to sell
4 Wuskwatim to our people is being driven by the
5 outside, supported by our Chief and Council and
6 their legal counsel. Manitoba Hydro pays all
7 consultants and their advisors to do what is
8 necessary in their minds to sell Wuskwatim. This
9 is not independent legal counsel or consulting
10 support.
11 What we need is a healthy democratic
12 debate with honesty, fairness, and transparency.
13 All NCN band members are entitled to be treated
14 with respect and dignity and have access to all
15 relevant information on this project. We should
16 not be subject to the sham consultation process
17 that has been followed to date. Our NCN members
18 who are concerned and want to raise questions to
19 have our voices heard are provided no resources to
20 properly voice our opinions and concerns. The
21 fact is, it seems that Manitoba Hydro and the
22 Manitoba Government are spending unlimited public
23 funds to sell this project.
24 We have asked how much of the over
25 4.2 million our future development corporation
2286
1 receives annually from the Manitoba Hydro and the
2 Government is being used for Wuskwatim promotion
3 purposes. On the first day of these hearings,
4 Mr. Mayer made reference to the current Federal
5 sponsorship scandal. I hope we do not have a
6 similar situation with Wuskwatim.
7 Many NCN members are afraid to raise
8 concerns and questions for fear of reprisals. All
9 of you should understand our concerns given that
10 our Chief has branded anyone who disagrees with
11 his support of the Wuskwatim project an economic
12 terrorist.
13 I would like to spend a few minutes
14 talking about how our people have been mislead by
15 our Chief and Council and Manitoba Hydro about the
16 Wuskwatim hydro and transmission lines projects.
17 Many of these concerns I raised in my letter in
18 September 2000 to Mr. Terry Duguid, former chair
19 of the Clean Environment Commission. This letter
20 was written in support of the request of Mr. Angus
21 Dysart, President of the Association for the
22 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake, to have
23 the CEC grant the motion of Pimicikamak Cree
24 Nation to have the scope of these hearings include
25 a review of past hydro development in Manitoba and
2287
1 their cumulative impacts. At that time I
2 requested that my letter be placed on the record
3 for these hearings, and I have copies of my
4 letter, and I am formally requesting again that it
5 be placed on record for these hearings. As
6 evidence, Mr. Dennis Troniak, an executive for the
7 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake, support
8 and endorse my request.
9 First of all, I would like to clarify
10 a few things about the Wuskwatim Agreement in
11 Principle and the vote to ratify it. As I
12 mentioned earlier, nowhere in the AIP or at any
13 time in the campaign leading up to the vote was
14 the possibility of NCN being co-proponents with
15 Manitoba Hydro on Wuskwatim ever mentioned. Chief
16 and Council and their legal counsel made their
17 decision without consulting or asking the consent
18 of NCN members. Many of us have asked the Hydro
19 consultants, who are supposed to provide
20 information on Wuskwatim to us, about this. We
21 were told, don't worry, it doesn't mean anything,
22 it is only for the environmental hearings.
23 Our Chief and Council are misleading
24 the Clean Environment Commission and the public by
25 saying that the referendum our people ratified for
2288
1 the Agreement in Principle shows that we as NCN
2 members are supporting the Wuskwatim project and
3 us being co-proponents overwhelmingly. I
4 understand that two days ago unauthorized revised
5 AIP voting results were tabled with this hearing
6 to replace those previously filed. In reviewing a
7 copy of the new filed results I noticed they were
8 not authorized by an election returning officer
9 or independent election official, and I am
10 requesting that the CEC ask for validation of
11 those results.
12 From the information and assurance
13 provided by our Chief and Council, our people were
14 lead to believe that ratification of the AIP only
15 meant that we would allow our leaders to discuss
16 with Manitoba Hydro the possibility of the
17 development of the Wuskwatim Generating Station.
18 In turn, they would provide us with environmental
19 reviews and a compensation package that would be
20 part of another referendum to accept the project
21 or not.
22 Another aspect of the AIP referendum
23 is also troubling and causing widespread concern
24 in our community. All of us were lead to believe
25 that we were being asked to provide permission for
2289
1 our Chief and Council to continue preliminary
2 negotiations on the Wuskwatim project and its
3 associated transmission facilities to only deliver
4 power to the nearest power grid, the proposed
5 Birchtree Station. Now we hear that the Wuskwatim
6 project will have another transmission line that
7 will cut across our traditional territory. How
8 many transmission lines are there, and how many
9 traditional territories and traplines will be
10 affected? We have been told that one line is the
11 width of the length of a football field. What
12 impact will these clear-cut lines have on our
13 resource area? Will the moose and whitetail deer
14 migrate with those ticks that have affected the
15 population down south? Will they affect our
16 woodland caribou population? Will more hunters
17 from the south travel in these new transmission
18 corridors during the winter?
19 Manitoba Hydro and their customers
20 here and in the United States are concerned about
21 the issues of system reliability. I understand
22 that the issue of whether Manitoba Hydro has
23 system reliability available to them to ensure
24 uninterrupted power from the north to southern
25 Manitoba and for export will be discussed later in
2290
1 these hearings.
2 A few years ago, we remember when a
3 twister crossed Highway Number 6, and Manitoba
4 Hydro lost 75 percent of their generation through
5 these transmission corridors which run parallel to
6 the highway. What is system reliability to
7 Manitoba Hydro? What is the value of system
8 reliability? It makes you wonder if the real
9 motive of Manitoba Hydro to fast-track the
10 Wuskwatim project to add extra transmission line
11 is to have an alternative route to deliver power
12 down south.
13 It seems that all of the focus is on
14 the Wuskwatim Generating Station, but what about
15 the new transmission corridor from Birchtree
16 station through our territory down to The Pas?
17 Why are there three transmission lines associated
18 with Wuskwatim when one should be enough?
19 We are hoping and counting on the
20 Clean Environment Commission to ensure that all of
21 these issues and the many others raised are
22 throughly assessed and enough time is provided,
23 even if it means extending these hearings.
24 Our Chief and Council, Manitoba Hydro
25 and Government representatives like Mr. Tim Sale
2291
1 are stating publicly that we as NCN members fully
2 support this project. How can we be expected to
3 be in a position to make a reasoned decision on
4 whether we support the Wuskwatim project if we
5 don't understand what the impacts are, when and if
6 firm profits can be expected, and the amount, the
7 financial risk involved, potential adverse
8 environmental affects, and what compensation we
9 will receive?
10 The information provided to NCN
11 members from NCN Chief and Council, Manitoba Hydro
12 and the consultants hired to communicate with us
13 is often vague, incomplete, and often
14 contradictory. This, plus the actions to
15 fast-track this project has created a lot of
16 anxiety, fear, and suspicion in our community. We
17 are talking about our future and our future
18 generations, and we remember the false promises of
19 hope and prosperity made by Manitoba Hydro and the
20 Government of Manitoba. We do not want it to
21 happen again. These past false promises were
22 accompanied by claims that the environmental
23 impacts of the Churchill/Nelson River project were
24 not really known, but that Manitoba Hydro were
25 confident that they would be limited and
2292
1 manageable. In reading the transcripts of these
2 hearings, reading the Winnipeg Free Press, and
3 talking to those who have attended here in person,
4 I see a lot of the same assurances made by
5 Manitoba Hydro. They appear competent in their
6 forecast and assessments of any potential future
7 impacts associated with the Wuskwatim project. I
8 hope the accuracy of these forecasts will be
9 thoroughly examined and questioned during these
10 hearings.
11 I also question whether our people
12 have been mislead to believe that income
13 projections for NCN from the Wuskwatim dam by 2035
14 will be up to 35 million a year. Yet my
15 understanding is that Manitoba Hydro's main
16 customer for exports, Excel Energy, renewed its
17 contract until 2015. When I attended the Excel
18 Energy annual shareholders meeting in June 2003 in
19 Minneapolis with a number of elders and concerned
20 NCN band members from our community and South
21 Indian Lake, I learned that for Manitoba Hydro and
22 Excel Energy to get regulatory approval for the
23 contract, they had to convince the Minnesota
24 Public Utilities Commission that the contract did
25 not involve any new construction of hydro. The
2293
1 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission was assured
2 that the extension of the existing export contract
3 between Excel Energy and Manitoba Hydro would not
4 involve more hydro dam construction such as
5 Wuskwatim, and only involved the selling of power
6 being generated from existing dams. I believe the
7 appeal hearing is currently underway. Perhaps the
8 CEC should find out its status.
9 The press in Minnesota, including the
10 St. Paul Pioneer Press, the winner of three
11 Pulitzer prizes for journalism, has reported that
12 Excel Energy in the United States, Manitoba
13 Hydro's biggest export customer purchasing over
14 40 percent of their power, has stated that they
15 are planning to purchase less and not more power
16 from Manitoba Hydro in the future. During these
17 hearings and publicly, Manitoba Hydro and the
18 Premier of Manitoba have stated that future hydro
19 development projects like Wuskwatim are being
20 built for the export of power, with Wuskwatim
21 being built to export power to the United States,
22 presumably primarily to Excel Energy. Why are two
23 different stories being told depending on what
24 side of the U.S./Canada border you live in?
25 I understand that on March 15, 2003,
2294
1 at these hearings, Mr. Ken Adams stated that in a
2 meeting that he held with Excel Energy on Friday,
3 March 12, 2003, he was assured that Excel was
4 planning to buy more power from Manitoba Hydro in
5 the future. I am requesting that Manitoba Hydro
6 have that confirmed in writing immediately and
7 table it with the CEC for these hearings. Vague
8 assurance and promises or the words of Manitoba
9 Hydro should not be accepted as fact that Excel
10 will substantially increase its power purchase
11 from Manitoba Hydro.
12 We should also make sure that both
13 Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba are
14 saying the same things about exporting power from
15 Wuskwatim.
16 During the evening debate at the
17 February 23, 2004 Hydro forum at the University of
18 Winnipeg, Minister Tim Sales repeatedly stated
19 that Wuskwatim and other Hydro projects are being
20 planned to profit from future export markets. I
21 have a recorded audio tape of the February 23
22 evening debate provided by the forum organizers,
23 which I would like now to submit to the Clean
24 Environment Commission to be placed on the record
25 of these hearings. Do you have it?
2295
1 MR. TRONIAK: Yes, we have that
2 recording available.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: At the end of the
4 presentation, we will deal with it. Proceed with
5 the presentation.
6 MS. KOBLISKI: I also strongly
7 encourage you to listen to the presentations made
8 by Romeo Saganash of the Quebec Grand Council of
9 Crees, David Chartrand, President of the Manitoba
10 Metis Federation, and Dr. Paul Chartrand, law
11 professor from the University of Saskatchewan, who
12 was one of the primary authors of the Northern
13 Flood Agreement. The questions and comments posed
14 to Minister Tim Sales are especially important.
15 They represent a wide cross-section of different
16 views and opinions on the Wuskwatim project, past
17 hydro development, and what Manitoba Hydro and the
18 Government of Manitoba say they are doing to
19 redress the environmental and socioeconomic
20 devastation that they have caused and have refused
21 to adequately deal with. The tone of the
22 questions and comments from Mr. Sales ranged from
23 frustration to anger as he defended Manitoba Hydro
24 and tried to sell the merits of Wuskwatim to the
25 members.
2296
1 A few NCN members, not supported by
2 our Chief and Council, were able to come to the
3 forum to listen and learn about what is going on
4 in Manitoba and Quebec in regards to the hydro
5 development. We also were able to learn about the
6 new partnership and way of doing business between
7 Hydro Quebec and the Cree of Quebec.
8 Unfortunately, Manitoba Hydro did not attend the
9 forum, so we were unable to learn and question the
10 way they are planning to foster new partnerships
11 with the Cree of Northern Manitoba. I understand
12 assurances were given to the forum organizers by
13 Mr. Vic Schroeder, Chairman of the board of
14 Manitoba Hydro, that the utility would
15 participate. We have been informed by organizers
16 of the forum that Manitoba Hydro even tried to get
17 Hydro Quebec not to participate in the conference
18 and have the University of Manitoba not to host
19 the forum -- University of Winnipeg, sorry.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I interrupt for a
21 moment? Can I ask you to just read a little
22 slower for the court reporter, please.
23 MS. KOBLISKI: This from a Crown
24 corporation that professes to be open, fair, and
25 transparent, with nothing to hide from the public.
2297
1 It is unfortunate that the over 20 NCN
2 members that our Chief and Council are supporting
3 to come down to this hearing and go to the United
4 States to say what Manitoba Hydro wants them to
5 say were not sent to the February forum. They
6 would have learned what is happening in places
7 like Quebec. This is the type of education and
8 informational opportunities our people need and
9 deserve, not the incomplete vague and often
10 questionable information that is being fed to us
11 as part of the hard sell of Wuskwatim.
12 I would like to say a few things about
13 the University of Winnipeg forum. I strongly
14 disagree with the statements made at these
15 hearings on March 15, 2003, by Elvis Thomas and
16 Manitoba Hydro, that the Quebec experience is not
17 relevant for NCN. Dr. Peter Kulchyski mentioned a
18 few of them in his presentation yesterday. Like
19 Manitoba, Quebec has an overall master agreement
20 treaty between First Nation people and a Crown
21 owned power utility to deal with the impacts and
22 concerns of hydro development. In Manitoba, this
23 is a Northern Flood Agreement, and in Quebec, it
24 is a James Bay Agreement.
25 At the forum I learned that there are
2298
1 a lot of similarities between the experiences and
2 situations in Quebec and Manitoba. In both
3 provinces, large aggressive hydro development
4 expansions in the 1970s lead to great adverse
5 environmental and socioeconomic impacts for the
6 local Aboriginal communities and people. Both
7 provinces have major agreements to deal with the
8 impacts -- in Manitoba, the Northern Flood
9 Agreement Treaty; in Quebec, the James Bay
10 agreement. In both provinces the Provincial
11 Governments and the Crown owned hydro utilities
12 were successful in effectively tying up
13 compensation claims and commitments made under the
14 agreement in costly and time consuming mediation
15 and arbitration. In both provinces, the
16 Provincial Governments and Public Utilities
17 embarked on a policy of trying to negotiate
18 separate settlement agreements with the individual
19 community. In Manitoba, these were the so-called
20 master implementation agreements in the 1990s,
21 which many of us characterize as buy-out
22 agreements. In fact, in Quebec in 1990, after 15
23 years of frustration, the Quebec Cree went to
24 court and sued Hydro Quebec and the Governments of
25 Quebec and Canada for failing to honour the James
2299
1 Bay Agreement.
2 In his remarks to the hearing on
3 March 15, 2003, Elvis Thomas stated that the
4 Quebec situation had been examined and discussed
5 with our people. This is not the case. I
6 challenge Manitoba Hydro and our Chief and Council
7 to provide substantive reason, backed up credible
8 analysis, as to why the Quebec experience and how
9 they have come to a new way of cooperating on
10 future of hydro development is not acceptable for
11 Manitoba.
12 NCN members and the CEC should not
13 have to rely on the subjective statements made at
14 these hearings by Elvis Thomas and Manitoba Hydro
15 that Manitoba and Quebec situations are not
16 comparable.
17 The forum session provided valuable
18 information on the new relationships and
19 agreements being developed between the Cree and
20 the Innu Aboriginal people of Quebec and the
21 Province of Quebec and Hydro Quebec.
22 I will not take up time here going
23 over the forum in detail, however, there are a few
24 things that I would like to point out:
25 As Mr. Troniak stated on March 15th, in 1990 the
2300
1 Quebec Cree were offered a Wuskwatim like deal
2 where they were given the opportunity to borrow
3 money from Hydro Quebec and invest equity into
4 future Hydro projects. They turned this deal down
5 for the following reasons:
6 1. The Cree felt that by allowing the
7 use of their traditional resources and
8 resource area, they were also putting
9 equity into future dam projects and
10 they should not have to borrow money,
11 especially from Hydro Quebec, and take
12 the risk of getting a rate of return
13 from future speculative profits.
14 2. The consultations that took place
15 on a purely commercial deal and its
16 terms shook Cree unity and created
17 problems in the communities.
18 3. The deals that were offered, like
19 the Wuskwatim deal, were strictly
20 commercial risk deals that did nothing
21 to solve the socioeconomic problems of
22 past hydro development in the James
23 Bay agreement between Hydro Quebec and
24 the Cree.
25
2301
1 High level, nation to nation consultations between
2 the Premier of Quebec and Ted Moses, the Grand
3 Chief of the Council of Crees in Quebec, lead to a
4 new way of doing things. In Quebec, the Cree
5 Nations refused to extinguish their treaty rights
6 in signing additional agreements to the James Bay
7 Agreement as our Chief and Council did with our
8 NFA implementation agreement in 1996.
9 Importantly for us, after the Quebec
10 Cree turned down the offer of investing in out
11 future Hydro dam development in a Wuskwatim like
12 deal, the Quebec Government and Hydro Quebec came
13 back with a new and better deal that made the Cree
14 a true partner in hydro development, respecting
15 their Treaty and Aboriginal rights. The Cree in
16 Quebec took their case to the United States, and
17 the fear of losing a $17 billion deal to New York
18 State brought both the Government of Quebec and
19 Hydro Quebec to the table to negotiate on a fair
20 and equitable basis. Their opposition, coupled
21 with a court action against the Governments of
22 Canada and Quebec and Hydro Quebec for
23 non-compliance to the James Bay Agreement lead to
24 the cancellation of the Great Whale hydro project.
25 These actions by the Cree of Quebec were key in
2302
1 forcing Hydro Quebec and the Government of Quebec
2 to come to the table and deal with the Cree
3 fairly.
4 This is the type of leadership,
5 vision, and courage, that is sorely lacking in our
6 Chief and Council working for Manitoba Hydro and
7 the Government of Manitoba in trying to shove this
8 Wuskwatim take it or leave it deal down our
9 throats.
10 I will not go over the information
11 provided by Hydro Quebec and the Cree and the Innu
12 presenters at the University of Winnipeg forum in
13 detail. However, this information will be shared
14 with as many people as we can, especially NCN
15 members. But this is difficult as we are not
16 provided resources or help from our Chief and
17 Council or Manitoba Hydro to distribute this type
18 of important and relevant information.
19 However, I would just like to state
20 that not only are the financial rewards, training,
21 and other opportunities with job guarantees, of
22 these Quebec agreements are far superior to
23 anything that we would receive under Wuskwatim.
24 But there is one other important consideration --
25 control. For example, under the Nadashtin
2303
1 Agreement Eastmain 1 Hydro Project in Quebec, on
2 the project board of directors, there is a Cree
3 majority with five Cree representatives and four
4 Hydro Quebec representatives, effectively giving
5 the Cree final say on the decision made that will
6 affect their traditional lands and resources area.
7 $70 million a year is guaranteed, indexed to
8 inflation, for the Nadashtin Cree, plus provisions
9 for additional money if more money is generated
10 from the hydroelectricity, forestry, fishing, and
11 mining produced in their traditional territory.
12 They can invest or spend the money as they see
13 fit, with no control by Hydro Quebec or the
14 Government.
15 A Cree employment agency has been
16 created guaranteeing 150 full-time jobs for the
17 Cree. Most of these jobs are technical positions
18 and skilled jobs, not the low paying and low
19 skilled jobs we will get with Wuskwatim.
20 On March 15th, at these hearings,
21 Mr. Ken Adams of Manitoba Hydro admitted that
22 there are no job guarantees for NCN members with
23 Wuskwatim, and all hiring decisions will be made
24 by the contract companies hired by Manitoba Hydro
25 through the project's general partner.
2304
1 Under the Nadashtin agreement, at
2 least $300 million in contracts will be involved
3 with the $2 billion 770 megawatt Nadashtim Eastman
4 1 Hydro Project Agreement. I wonder why
5 $1 billion is being projected to be spent for only
6 200 megawatts for Wuskwatim. The Nadashtin
7 project also includes funding for remedial
8 measures, infrastructures, archaeology and
9 cultural funds, wildlife funds, training funds,
10 and mercury funds to deal with the effects of
11 mercury caused by hydro flooding. We were told
12 that with these new agreements there is almost
13 full employment and any qualified Cree that wants
14 a job is hired.
15 This is only one of several agreements
16 being negotiated with the Cree and Innu in Quebec.
17 At the forum we were informed that the latest
18 agreement with the 7,000 Innu in Quebec guaranteed
19 a minimum of $100 million a year in revenue. All
20 profits are shared with 50.1 percent going to the
21 Innu and 49.9 percent going to Hydro Quebec. As
22 with the Cree of Quebec, no risk investment was
23 required of the Innu to be part of the partnership
24 agreement. These agreements include firm
25 guarantees of full-time sustainable employment
2305
1 that will lead to good futures for Cree youth.
2 One very important aspect of the new
3 agreement in Quebec are that it is the traditional
4 elders of the community who have the final say on
5 what is to be negotiated and they have to agree
6 with the terms of any settlement agreement. This
7 is done because it is strongly believed that a
8 long-term approach, focusing on total welfare and
9 future of the community must be emphasized. This
10 approach guarantees against deals and agreements
11 made by transitory elected representatives for
12 short-term gains or political self-interest.
13 Importantly, these agreements have clauses to
14 re-open them to ensure that they continue to be
15 relevant and meet the needs of the Cree and Innu.
16 I wonder why our Chief and Council
17 have not looked into these types of agreements for
18 NCN? If they have, and they have kept everything
19 secret from us, it certainly can be convincingly
20 argued that they certainly have not been
21 negotiating in the best interests of NCN members
22 in their closed door meetings with Manitoba Hydro
23 and the Government of Manitoba.
24 In contrast to what the Cree and Innu
25 have obtained in Quebec, what we are being offered
2306
1 is the opportunity to borrow money from Hydro,
2 producing sizeable debt, ceding control of our
3 futures, allowing the exploitation of our lands
4 and resources for the promises of future
5 speculative profits, and promise of some low skill
6 and low paying short-term construction jobs for
7 the honour of being limited partners with Manitoba
8 Hydro. I also wonder what our guaranteed share of
9 any future profits will be and how the transfer to
10 general revenues of Manitoba Hydro profits will
11 affect our supposed revenue from Wuskwatim.
12 Even with 33 percent equity ownership,
13 we will only have one-third of the board seats on
14 the general partnership compared to Manitoba
15 Hydro's two-thirds majority. Manitoba Hydro will
16 have total control of all decisions and aspects of
17 the Wuskwatim project and partnership agreement.
18 This will include all hiring and employment
19 related to the project. The Wuskwatim board can
20 meet and make decisions without any Cree members
21 present.
22 Before I finish my comments today, I
23 would like to raise important concerns that we
24 have with the promised referendum vote on the
25 Wuskwatim Project Development Agreement. First of
2307
1 all, we strongly feel that the vote should be held
2 prior to the Clean Environmental Commission
3 closing its hearings and providing recommendations
4 to the Minister of Conservation and the issuing of
5 any permits or licences for the Wuskwatim Hydro
6 Generating and Transmission Projects. It is
7 unfair to put enormous pressure on NCN that by
8 voting no they will stand in the way of the
9 project going ahead. There is enough stress and
10 problems in our community without forcing this
11 enormous burden on us.
12 On the first day of these hearings the
13 issue of the timing of the project development
14 agreement referendum vote was discussed, with a
15 panel member of the CEC expressing relief that
16 Elvis Thomas stated the expected August or early
17 September date for the vote would fit into
18 Manitoba Hydro's construction plans for Wuskwatim.
19 I take offence that it seems that only the
20 concerns of Manitoba Hydro seem to be recognized
21 and worthy of consideration. The referendum vote
22 should only be held after proper consultation and
23 all issues, including compensation and Treaty and
24 Aboriginal rights of NCN are properly addressed.
25 We want an independent legal counsel
2308
1 to explain the Wuskwatim project development
2 agreement and its implications to all NCN band
3 members to ensure all aspects of the agreement are
4 appropriately explained. All agreements should be
5 translated in Cree and presented in a manner so
6 that all of us can properly understand what is
7 being voted on. The entire agreements and
8 relevant information should be translated, not
9 just what our Chief and Council and Manitoba Hydro
10 want to be translated and explained.
11 The Clean Environment Commission
12 should consider all of these, along with the vote
13 and how it is conducted, in its deliberation and
14 recommendations to the Minister of Conservation
15 whether the project should proceed.
16 Many NCN members are seriously
17 concerned about the referendum vote on the project
18 development agreement. These concerns are
19 well-founded and stem from our last NCN Chief and
20 Council elections, where there were voting
21 irregularities and our traditional NCN election
22 code was violated. Our election appeal committee
23 appointed by Chief Primrose called for a re-vote.
24 Our Chief and Council refused to follow our
25 traditional ways and abide by the decision of the
2309
1 election appeal committee.
2 This coupled with the controversy and
3 concerns with the Wuskwatim AIP vote leave us very
4 concerned and suspicious of the upcoming project
5 development agreement vote. We have no faith and
6 trust in our Chief and Council of holding a fair
7 and honest referendum vote. As Elvis Thomas
8 stated to Leslie Dysart of South Indian Lake in
9 CASIL's cross-examination on March 8th, there were
10 not even any independent scrutineers for the
11 Wuskwatim Agreement in Principle vote to ensure
12 that the votes were counted properly.
13 For the Wuskwatim project development
14 agreement, we are demanding that Elections
15 Manitoba, Elections Canada, or another truly
16 independent party, following appropriate rules and
17 procedures, oversee all facets of the referendum
18 vote.
19 We are also very concerned about
20 reprisal from our Chief and Council to those
21 speaking out or voicing their concerns in the time
22 leading to the referendum vote and after. We will
23 make these concerns known to the Government of
24 Manitoba and Canada. I am also putting those
25 concerns on the record for these hearings. Thank
2310
1 you.
2 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might
3 assign the presentation by the Displaced Residents
4 of South Indian Lake, and I note the additional
5 Justice Seekers of Nelson House as submitted today
6 as DRSIL 1000. And I wonder if you want to make a
7 determination on the recording that is being
8 tendered, Mr. Chairman?
9
10 (EXHIBIT DRSIL 1000: Presentation by
11 the Displaced Residents of South
12 Indian Lake, and Justice Seekers of
13 Nelson House)
14
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar, I believe
16 that on this particular issue, I would like to
17 consult with my colleagues on the panel and we
18 will render a decision at a later date.
19 MR. TRONIAK: We can leave them with
20 the Commission and you can decide to do with it as
21 you please.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Regarding the
25 presentation by Carol, the Chief has instructed me
2311
1 that he is not to be included as the Justice
2 Seeker Committee, because he doesn't belong there,
3 so strike him off of that.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I'm not
5 following exactly what you said?
6 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: There was a title
7 that was given to the presentation just now on
8 that document called Justice Seekers, and he
9 overheard that they were included in that, their
10 names came up, and he is not part of that
11 organization.
12 MR. GREWAR: And the individual's name
13 is?
14 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Joshua Flett and
15 Frank Moore.
16 MR. GREWAR: Both of them. That is
17 fine. I will make sure that is done.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. That
19 completes the --
20 MR. TRONIAK: That completes the
21 presentation.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that and I
23 believe there is presentations to be made.
24 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Yes, there will be
25 a presentation from these two gentlemen, and I
2312
1 will be the spokesman for them.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: You will be
3 translating?
4 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Josh has instructed
5 me and we have been ordered by the woman that I
6 speak for him in this matter, and translate what
7 we already previously discussed. So what is going
8 to be taking place here is from now on when I
9 start speaking to make the presentation, you will
10 look at me as if I am Josh, because he has
11 transferred that seat to me for the moment, and to
12 express what he has come to this forum for. And
13 he has also been commanded to follow protocol.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. You may
15 proceed.
16 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: So he has given me
17 the authority to speak on whatever he is going to
18 talk about, we have discussed already.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: And that is Mr. Moore?
20 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Mr. Flett. First
21 of all, if I may just for a second, I hope you
22 won't laugh. My name is Joshua Flett, I am the
23 traditional Chief and head man --
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second.
25 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Of Nelson House
2313
1 Indian reserve 170.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understood that.
3 I'm seeing that there is a point that Ms. Matthews
4 Lemieux wishes to make.
5 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: Just on behalf
6 of my clients, are you just going to be
7 translating all the way along? They were asking
8 if it is going to be in Cree, if the Cree could be
9 taped or we were --
10 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: It already has been
11 his wish, and the wish of the woman that I speak
12 on this forum.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: The way I understand
14 it, the gentleman, I cannot say the last name --
15 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Wapaskokimaw.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Which I still cannot
17 say without seeing the spelling. He has indicated
18 that he will speak for Mr. Flett and for
19 Mr. Moore. That he has already been -- for
20 Mr. Flett and for Mr. Moore and that he has been
21 pre-authorized to do so. And when he speaks, he
22 speaks their words. Proceed.
23 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Okay. Upon earlier
24 discussion it was understood that Josh, as the
25 Chief, he is the traditional Chief of Nelson House
2314
1 Indian Reserve, 170, for the record, Treaty 5 of
2 1875. They had taken that form of Government
3 because in there it says that the undersigned
4 chiefs, the undersigned chiefs do solemnly promise
5 to strictly observe this treaty, and that is what
6 they are doing. That is what he told me to say.
7 He said tell them, we have taken the treaty, we
8 are going to hang on to our treaty. We can not
9 let go of our treaty. It is our protection. It
10 is the treaty that was signed by our forefathers
11 on a nation to nation basis with the Crown of
12 England. And our treaty goes back even beyond
13 that, that the Government of Canada and the
14 immigrant population that came into our country is
15 bound by to follow treaty stipulations.
16 And it is every right that an Indian
17 has that wants to hang on to his treaty that there
18 is no other secondary or foreign law that would
19 deny him that right. When we have our meetings in
20 our traditional forum, the protocol and priority
21 is that we speak for the unborn, the future
22 generations to come. It is written in the great
23 law that the great spirit had granted us to live
24 in this continent, that we are not to abuse mother
25 earth in any way, shape or form. We are to
2315
1 protect the livelihood and the existence of the
2 ancients and our ancestors that came before us and
3 are yet to go ahead, that we are to protect mother
4 earth and hang on to our tribal custom and usage.
5 It is a rule of law where we dwell and live in the
6 continent of North America.
7 Therefore the people that have been
8 speaking on our behalf without our consent do not
9 represent or speak for us in any way, shape or
10 form. We are the people of North America, and we
11 have always been here. And if you were to look at
12 history and the stories and the legends of our
13 ancestors that have been passed on for centuries,
14 even the white people know we have been here
15 forever and from day one.
16 Therefore when it comes to the title,
17 the real landlord of north and south America, it
18 is by the will of the Great Spirit that I speak
19 from that authority. And if there is any question
20 to the agreements that came into our territory
21 without proper notification and proper
22 representation, we have every right to question
23 what it will do for the future and to the lands
24 and the waters and everything in it that was
25 granted to us by the Great Spirit.
2316
1 I did not come to this forum to be in
2 a militant fashion and to cut down my own brother
3 or my sister, or the people of non-Indian descent
4 that we made an agreement to live in peace with.
5 But they too must understand protocol and treaty
6 stipulations have to be met, which is also the
7 foundations of their systems of Government in the
8 world that they have to abide by. If anyone feels
9 for any reason and seems to think that I do not
10 speak for them, that is their business. They have
11 a right to do what they want. And I also have a
12 right to speak for those people that want to hang
13 on to their treaty, and they want to protect
14 mother earth, and they want to live by the great
15 law of the Great Spirit. I was commissioned by my
16 mother, my grandmother and their mothers before
17 that, to carry on this duty and obligated to do it
18 to the best of my ability.
19 Manitoba Hydro, when it comes to
20 tribal custom and usage, it has no rules that can
21 supersede my treaty. When the treaty was signed
22 it was on the basis of forever. That is the way
23 it was addressed by the Crown of England. And the
24 other interpretation of the other treaty party,
25 which is us, we said as long as the sun shines,
2317
1 the river flows and the grass grows. We are a
2 nation. We are citizens of our own nation. There
3 is no one that can interpret my treaty other than
4 another signatory Indian of a treaty. A lawyer of
5 the constitutional bar cannot speak for me because
6 his oath of allegiance doesn't lie with my
7 sovereignty. He is bound by constitutional law
8 not to represent an Indian under his treaty, that
9 would be prejudicial to the Canadian
10 constitutional government.
11 Therefore, the other thing, when a
12 group of people that used to belong to a
13 reservation recognized by all international law
14 through a treaty process decide to incorporate
15 into a foreign government and become a
16 corporation, they are no longer treaty, so
17 therefore they can not speak for me or my children
18 or the people that I represent.
19 And the reason why I picked this man
20 to speak for me today, and you tell him that,
21 Gordon, is because you know treaty and you live by
22 treaty, and you know that it is taught by the
23 elders and that have been taught to you by their
24 grandmothers and the grandmothers before that.
25 You have every right to speak as one mind like
2318
1 they do, because we are brothers.
2 So, therefore, Chief Joshua Flett,
3 traditional Chief, Nelson House Indian Reserve
4 170, treaty 5 of 1875, will not consent to a
5 process that is going to take away his right and
6 title, his treaty right, or put in danger the
7 future generations of his people. He will abide
8 and live and die by the law of the Great Spirit,
9 and will administer his Government by the will of
10 the Great Spirit.
11 That is what he has instructed me to
12 say. And I'm only repeating what he has told me.
13 So therefore, that is the stand and the position
14 that have been maintained. The Government of
15 Canada, the Province of Manitoba know who they
16 are. And this here forum, if you want to call it
17 that, they have made their presence known here,
18 just to notify and inform you of who they are and
19 how they are feeling and due process and the rule
20 of law that they have to live by.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that complete?
22 Mr. Moore. You wish to speak?
23 MR. MOORE: My name is Frank Moore
24 from Nelson House Indian reserve.
25 (SPEAKING CREE)
2319
1 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: My name is Frank
2 Moore from Nelson House Indian Reserve. And these
3 people that are sitting here, we fired them,
4 because we found out what they were doing was
5 corrupt.
6 (SPEAKING CREE)
7 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: They cheated
8 because they picked themselves. They vote
9 themselves. That is why Joshua was appointed
10 traditional Chief and the head man that sit with
11 him. We don't have no chief in the elected system
12 and no councillors. We don't know who is the
13 authority here, the white people or the chief and
14 council, because they never disclose what they are
15 doing. That is all I'm going to say for now.
16 Thank you.
17 (Audience clapping)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please
19 refrain. Questions?
20 I have a question, Ms. Kobliski, I'm
21 not sure, I think it is probably a typo, but there
22 is frequent references made in your presentation
23 to the date of March 15, 2003. I do believe that
24 you meant 2004?
25 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes, a typo.
2320
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Because it comes back,
2 the same one, a number of times. Maybe you can
3 enlighten me on just one more point.
4 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, Councillor
5 Thomas speaking. I've never in my life witnessed
6 one person to have an ability to be able to think
7 the thoughts of another human being and be able to
8 speak the words that have been spoken. It is
9 indeed a very amazing ability. Could we have the
10 elder speak for himself in Cree, and say the words
11 that he wants to say?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, would you ask
13 Elder Joshua Flett to comment or speak at the mike
14 in his language?
15 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: He said he can
16 speak for a while but not very long.
17 ELDER FLETT: (SPEAKING IN CREE)
18 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: The request was
19 granted for the Elder to speak in his own
20 language. And what he has spoke there, and said
21 is, okay, I will speak for a while but I won't be
22 very long. I'm very angry and discontent about
23 what has taken place, where I come from. We are
24 having a hard time now and I'm very concerned.
25 The credibility of what we are supposed to have as
2321
1 Chief and Council, we don't have. And I'm very
2 concerned about my children, and their children.
3 The water we are drinking is no good. There is,
4 what he calls it in Cree, what you would call it
5 in your language, and for layman's terms, the shit
6 is flowing in the water and we are drinking that.
7 The future of our children looks very dismal. I'm
8 very unhappy. To come here was very hard for me
9 because I'm not financially equipped to do that.
10 And that is all I can remember him saying now.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. THOMAS: I just want to point out
13 for the record, Mr. Chairman, that the comments
14 spoken by the Elder have been interpreted as best
15 as the gentlemen can, and it is still not
16 complete. And at the same time, the comments made
17 by the Elder are not reflective of what he
18 proposes to have spoken on behalf of the Elder
19 for.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thomas, until we
21 know what the record states, let the record stand
22 for the time being.
23 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: Mr. Chairman, I
24 thank you for your comment. And the statements
25 that were made by the Chief and head man for the
2322
1 moment were statements, and not open to question,
2 and I'm glad that you elaborated that, for the
3 moment what was said here will stay that way, and
4 with that we will leave the chair.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I was just going to,
6 before Mr. Thomas interjected, towards the end of
7 your document, I wasn't sure that I understood,
8 Ms. Kobliski -- Sorry, I misunderstood.
9 MR. WAPASKOKIMAW: If you want to
10 question her that is fine, if she agrees to it,
11 but for our part we are done here.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I'm asking a
13 question of Ms. Kobliski, and if what you are
14 stating at the moment is that you are not prepared
15 to entertain any questions, and until we've first
16 of all determined, made the determination in
17 regards to the record, that is fine, and you can
18 proceed to remove yourself from the table if you
19 so wish at this point in time, or you may sit
20 there until we finish the questioning.
21 I just have one question that I wish
22 to ask. Towards the end of their presentation,
23 specifically I believe it is on page 32, it seems
24 to me that you are saying that by voting, you are
25 asking that the voting take place before this
2323
1 Commission closes these hearings and makes its
2 recommendations to the minister. You are saying
3 that at the bottom of page 31, top of page 32, and
4 then further on page 32 you say that the
5 referendum vote should only be held after proper
6 consultations and all issues, including
7 compensation and treaty and Aboriginal rights of
8 NCN members, are properly addressed. It seems in
9 one instance you are asking for sort of an
10 immediate vote, and then further on page 33 you
11 say that these issues along with the vote and how
12 it is conducted in its deliberations and
13 recommendations to the Minister of Conservation,
14 whether the project should proceed. You seem on
15 the one hand to say that the vote should be taken
16 now, to my understanding or interpretation, and
17 then you seem to be saying on the other hand, no,
18 it should only be taken long time hence. So, I'm
19 not sure whether you are stating that a referendum
20 on this agreement should take place in the
21 immediate future, or much later after full
22 consultations that you have referred to have taken
23 place?
24 MS. KOBLISKI: I would like to
25 apologize for the statement that was made on here,
2324
1 what I was trying to get across was that the
2 voting should take place after you guys make your
3 decision, or --
4 MR. TRONIAK: If I might explain -- I
5 just talked to Ms. Kobliski. The position, and it
6 is supported by my client, is that the decision of
7 the CEC should be delayed until the vote is held
8 in Nelson House. However, the vote in Nelson
9 House should not be held until there is full
10 information and the members are given all of the
11 information that is required to make a fair vote,
12 regardless of how long that takes. So, it is not
13 an immediate vote. We are saying that the vote --
14 Ms. Kobliski is saying, and supported by my
15 client, that the CEC should delay their opinion
16 until the vote is held, because with NCN having a
17 veto, if they veto it what is the point of
18 spending extra time and resources.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that still leaves
20 question marks in my mind. I will further review
21 that on the record. Mr. Mayer.
22 MR. MAYER: Mr. Troniak or Ms.
23 Kobliski, I understand that you represent two
24 separate organizations; am I correct in my
25 assumption?
2325
1 MR. TRONIAK: Well, Ms. Kobliski is
2 not a member of the Displaced Residents of South
3 Indian Lake, however our members support and are
4 members of Justice Seekers.
5 MR. MAYER: I understand that there
6 are a number of people who support a number of
7 other people, but in fact what we have here is
8 representatives of two different organizations, am
9 I correct in that assumption?
10 MR. TRONIAK: As Ms. Kobliski said,
11 they are all one band members and again they are
12 working together to deal with the issues.
13 MR. MAYER: I understand that too and
14 I also understand that most of the members of the
15 CASIL, Community Association of South Indian Lake,
16 are also members of the same band. My concern
17 with the answer to the Chair's question is that if
18 you need to know all of the facts before you can
19 make a decision, you need to know what the
20 Minister is going to do before you are going to
21 know all of the facts. For example, and I ask you
22 to consider this, and this came up earlier, when
23 it comes to the issue of compensation, part of
24 that compensation would undoubtedly depend upon
25 which part of the traditional lands of the NCN
2326
1 band the transmission lines ran through. As they
2 are presently scheduled, they run what I believe
3 to be almost the whole width through the
4 traditional lands of NCN. There is a possibility
5 that those transmission lines -- the
6 recommendation of this Commission may be that
7 those transmission lines be moved. And for
8 example, again, if we move them straight east
9 across the Burntwood River at Wuskwatim, they
10 would very quickly run outside of the traditional
11 or the resource area of the community. And that
12 may well have a very significant -- if the
13 minister were to accept that, they may very well
14 have a significant impact on whatever compensation
15 would be available.
16 So, if you consider that, do you want
17 our recommendation and the Minister's decision
18 before you vote, or do you want our recommendation
19 and the Minister's decision after you vote on
20 something that can't possibly give you all of the
21 information that you may need?
22 MR. TRONIAK: Well, you make a good
23 point, but our position is still the same. We
24 feel that until the NCN members have voted and
25 ratified the agreement, there isn't much point in
2327
1 the CEC recommending anything, because it is
2 either going to go ahead or not.
3 MR. MAYER: I have your position.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Yes,
5 Mr. Nepinak.
6 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 Ms. Kobliski, I know it is a sensitive issue, but
8 on page 33, the last paragraph you mention the
9 chief and council elections. My question is, is
10 your community Indian Act elections or Band Custom
11 elections?
12 MS. KOBLISKI: It is Band Customs, it
13 was under the Band Customs Act.
14 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Councillor Thomas.
16 MR. THOMAS: There was a question
17 posed and I would like to hear from Carol Kobliski
18 as opposed to Mr. Troniak on the answer to the
19 question that was posed by Mr. Mayer?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer, would you --
21 Ms. Kobliski, do you need Mr. Mayer to readdress
22 the question?
23 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes, please.
24 MR. THOMAS: The reason I ask is
25 because she was about to answer and Mr. Troniak
2328
1 jumped in.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer.
3 MR. MAYER: I'm not going to go over
4 the whole explanation. The question basically is
5 what is the position of Justice Seekers? We know
6 very clearly now the position of the Displaced
7 Persons of South Indian Lake. What is the
8 position of Justice Seekers, even if you haven't
9 considered that as a group, what is your position
10 with respect to the timing of the vote? Do you
11 want it before we recommend to the Minister and
12 the Minister make his decision, or do you want to
13 have it after, even though at that point, or do
14 you want -- do you want the vote before or after
15 we make our recommendations? I suppose that is
16 all I can ask.
17 MS. KOBLISKI: First of all, our name
18 Justice Seekers was given to us by the Elders of
19 Nelson House. I was chosen to be a spokesperson
20 on their behalf, and it is a great honour for me
21 to be representing them here today. And we are
22 basically a group of people that are band members
23 of Nelson House and we have great concerns with
24 the Wuskwatim project and how it is being
25 conducted and the process of it. And to answer
2329
1 Elvis Thomas' question that he is asking, we would
2 like the voting to happen before, like that is the
3 question that he was asking?
4 MR. MAYER: That was the question that
5 I asked.
6 MS. KOBLISKI: So before.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms.
8 Kobliski. So the position that you put -- it
9 starts at the bottom of page 31, which says, "We
10 strongly feel that the vote should be held prior
11 to the Clean Environment Commission closing its
12 hearings and providing recommendations to the
13 Minister of Conservation and issuing permits or
14 licence for the Wuskwatim generation and
15 transmission projects," that is the correct
16 statement that you want?
17 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Not the one where you
19 state further that you say you would like this to
20 be held further down road.
21 MR. TRONIAK: No, the vote should be
22 held after sufficient information is provided,
23 regardless of how long that is. But the vote
24 should be held prior to the Commission making its
25 recommendations. So the vote shouldn't be held on
2330
1 some time table for Hydro, it should be held when
2 the NCN band members have sufficient information.
3 I believe that is what is said later on in the
4 presentation.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: It is not clear, but I
6 will leave it at that. Yes, sir.
7 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: You have a question?
9 MR. MOORE: Yes, I have lots of
10 questions, don't worry. The first question, Ms.
11 Kobliski, you didn't present it, but it popped up
12 in my mind, and I will be asking questions
13 sometimes directly, but sometimes I will make a
14 comment before I ask. Now, my first question is
15 not on the presentation by it just popped up.
16 Also the votes have been mentioned here, I believe
17 it refers to the referendum. However the other
18 vote that I have in mind, do you think, yourself
19 in your mind, that NCN should have the election
20 first before further review taking place of the
21 project?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: That was the question
23 that was just asked and answered. That was the
24 question we were just asking Ms. Kobliski and she
25 just answered that question.
2331
1 MR. MOORE: Maybe I misunderstood
2 then. Was that the referendum or was that a
3 general election of NCN band, that is what I'm
4 asking?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you make the
6 distinction? Go ahead, Ms. Kobliski.
7 MS. KOBLISKI: Which elections are you
8 talking about?
9 MR. MOORE: The band election of Chief
10 and Council, do you think the NCN should have an
11 election before further review of the project?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: That is, I
13 misunderstood because I thought you were referring
14 to the issue raised during the presentation. The
15 question that you are asking has no relevance to
16 the points made by --
17 MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, you were not
18 listening. The first thing I said is you didn't
19 present this question, I'm going to pose to you
20 but I will explain it and I did. Where were you?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: The point that I'm
22 trying to make, sir, is that the question that you
23 are asking is not related to the presentation
24 made, and therefore, that question I rule out of
25 order.
2332
1 MR. MOORE: However --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: If you wish to ask
3 other questions, you may do so.
4 MR. MOORE: I have lots of questions.
5 Sorry you cut me off, but that question has a
6 relevancy.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that it
8 doesn't and it will not be answered. So ask your
9 other questions.
10 MR. MOORE: My second question, on
11 page 4, also I don't know if you are in a position
12 to answer it, but since you present it, perhaps
13 you know the difficulties in it. You quoted Chief
14 Primrose saying that he is tired of fighting. Do
15 you know what kind of fighting he is tired of?
16 MS. KOBLISKI: Probably political. I
17 can't really answer that. But from my own
18 knowledge it is probably political, political
19 pressure from the Government, that is what I would
20 think.
21 MR. MOORE: That is what you were
22 referring to?
23 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes.
24 MR. MOORE: On page 5, "We are also
25 very concerned about the proposed Wuskwatim
2333
1 partnership agreement that is being sold to our
2 people." What do you mean by sold? Although I do
3 have a general idea, and I don't like it, but an
4 answer for the record, please.
5 MS. KOBLISKI: Maybe I will explain a
6 little bit of that. The way it sounds here, we
7 are very concerned with the Wuskwatim partnership
8 agreement that is being sold to our people, the
9 reason we put it that way is because how things
10 are being put before our people, how it is being
11 one sided, in other words, that is what I'm trying
12 to get across there. It is just, to my
13 understanding it is being fast-tracked, everything
14 is just being pushed in front of us.
15 MR. MOORE: So that is considered that
16 we are being sold?
17 MS. KOBLISKI: Well, to me that is.
18 MR. MOORE: Thank you. On page 7, let
19 me find the starting sentence here first. For
20 example, the October 2003 Wuskwatim summary of
21 understandings signed by NCN/Manitoba Hydro is
22 non-binding with no guarantees to protect the
23 interests of NCN. First of all, what is
24 non-binding and what is the protection of the
25 interests of NCN?
2334
1 MR. TRONIAK: Non-binding means
2 non-binding on anybody. So neither side has to
3 follow what it says until they agree otherwise, or
4 they agree to something else.
5 MR. MOORE: So I may understand it,
6 this has to do with the Wuskwatim project can go
7 ahead, or will not go ahead because the signing is
8 not binding, am I asking the right question, is
9 that proper?
10 MR. TRONIAK: No, that is referred to
11 the summary of understanding is non-binding.
12 MR. MOORE: Thank you. Page 9, many
13 questions are being asked, now. Who is protecting
14 our Aboriginal and treaty rights, but the second,
15 third sentence rather, why is there no NFA
16 compensation agreement in place regarding
17 Wuskwatim? Actually you were asking that
18 question, but I guess I am compounding it sort of.
19 MS. KOBLISKI: Like I said before, I'm
20 a spokesperson on behalf of Justice Seekers, and I
21 cannot answer all of these questions that are here
22 in this presentation here today. But I can try my
23 best to answer what has been given to me because
24 this was put together by other NCN members. But
25 from my -- the questions that I'm asking also is
2335
1 who is protecting my rights, I would be asking
2 that also. Because from my understanding, from
3 our band lawyer, Ms. Valerie Lemieux, she is
4 supposed to be representing us. Who is she
5 representing here, Manitoba Hydro or NCN band
6 members? That is something that I would like to
7 know also.
8 MR. MOORE: Thank you.
9 MR. TRONIAK: Again, Ms. Kobliski has
10 to catch a flight, so I don't want to cut
11 Mr. Moore off at all, but if he has questions, I
12 don't know how long he will be, but we do have to
13 leave in about five minutes.
14 MR. MOORE: If you please allow me one
15 more question, and I will be very brief. This is
16 very important. On page 13 it says that our Chief
17 and Council are misleading the Environment
18 Commission and the public by saying that the
19 referendum of our people ratified for the
20 agreement in principal. That brings me back to
21 each speaker that goes to speak, this gentleman, I
22 can't remember his name, says that it is an
23 offence to mislead this Commission in any way
24 proper. And here in this presentation there is
25 black and white, somebody is misleading somebody.
2336
1 How can you answer that?
2 MR. TRONIAK: That is an opinion. I
3 don't know how one can answer that.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. It is an
5 opinion, and there will be no answer forthcoming.
6 Can I ask Ms. Kobliski whether you will be or
7 could be available when we reconvene in Thompson
8 to complete, if there were any additional
9 questions to be asked?
10 MS. KOBLISKI: Yes, I will be
11 available at that time in Thompson. I believe we
12 will be doing another presentation over there.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Assuming
14 that this is satisfactory for any other person who
15 might have wanted to ask questions, I know not
16 everybody can be there. I don't know if there
17 were other members within this room who wanted,
18 beside perhaps the proponents, who wanted to ask
19 questions. I understand Ms. Kobliski has a plane
20 to catch and time is of the essence, so we will
21 allow her to catch her plane.
22 MR. TRONIAK: Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer.
24 MR. MAYER: For anyone contemplating
25 coming to Thompson, as a Thompson resident and I
2337
1 am sure I speak on behalf of the mayor and council
2 of the City of Thompson, you are all welcome and
3 we will be at the Ramada Burntwood starting Monday
4 at 9:00 o'clock. Sorry, the St. Lawrence Hall.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: At 1:00 o'clock.
6 MR. MAYER: Come to Thompson early.
7 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, before we
8 adjourn for dinner, I am guessing that was your
9 plan at this point, there were two items that were
10 not entered as exhibits and I didn't realize they
11 were going to be submitted, and they are from
12 Pimicikamak and they are two documents. One is
13 the oral submission for the main hearing, which is
14 the text, and I guess it builds on the previously
15 submitted documentation. And another is the
16 statement of William Osborne. I'm wondering if
17 you would like to enter these as exhibits?
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
19 MR. GREWAR: That being the case, the
20 oral submission is PCN1000, and the statement of
21 William Osborne is PCN1001. And we have made
22 copies available and we will distribute those.
23
24 (EXHIBIT PCN-1000: Oral submission of
25 PCN)
2338
1 (EXHIBIT PCN-1001: Statement of
2 William Osborne)
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We stand
5 adjourned until 7:00 o'clock.
6
7 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 5:00 P.M.
8 AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.)
9
10
11 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, ladies and
12 gentlemen, can we take our chairs and get going
13 here.
14 As we stated before dinner, we have
15 individual presenters tonight, and I first of all
16 call on Mr. Scott Kidd to come forward and make
17 his presentation.
18 All right, will you proceed to
19 introduce yourself and then Mr. Grewar will
20 proceed with the swearing in.
21 THE WITNESS: My name is Scott Kidd,
22 K-I-D-D. I am a citizen of Winnipeg and I am
23 presenting this evening as a citizen of Winnipeg.
24
25 SCOTT KIDD: SWORN
2339
1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, you may
2 proceed.
3 MR. KIDD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4 Electricity is a wonderful thing. It
5 makes so much of what we take for granted and our
6 way of life possible. It is running this
7 overhead, it is running computers, it is running
8 lights, it does so much for us during our daily
9 lives. Sometimes we don't think about it. It
10 also makes much of our health care possible and
11 much of our communications available. Without it,
12 much of our lives would be much diminished.
13 Now, as you can see from the speaking
14 notes, imagine if you were one of the 2 billion
15 people who do not have access to electricity?
16 One-third of the world's population: No lights,
17 no access to health care, no running computers.
18 Everything that makes our life wonderful, a third
19 of the world doesn't have.
20 On top of that, these populations are
21 expected to grow and:
22 "The problems of rural energy are
23 liking to become more pressing than
24 ever."
25 These statistics are from the World
2340
1 Bank, a report of theirs from 2000. I don't think
2 anybody would consider the World Bank to be a
3 leftist organization, so we can probably take
4 these 2 billion people with a grain of salt there.
5 What occurs with these 2 billion
6 people, because they don't have electricity, they
7 have increased dependence on local biofuels; the
8 biofuels being wood, charcoal, dung, et cetera.
9 There is huge social and ecological costs involved
10 in the harvesting of these biofuels and the time
11 taken to use them.
12 If you think about it -- I don't know
13 if you guys had a chance to go home this evening,
14 but for me, I went home, turned on the stove, had
15 supper. All of ten minutes to do. These people
16 have to go out and collect all this wood, then
17 prepare it and then use it. Think of the time
18 that is lost to these people.
19 Accordingly, it is my position that
20 global social justice requires that we take steps
21 to reduce this gap between places like Canada,
22 Manitoba, that have electricity, and those 2
23 billion people who don't.
24 On top of it, this gap between rich
25 and poor countries is expanding. Manitoba and
2341
1 Canada have recognized that there is this global
2 gap, and in fact, have enunciated some steps to
3 take care of this.
4 Principles of Sustainable Development.
5 This comes from the Manitoba Sustainable
6 Development Act, and at the back are the
7 Principles of Sustainable Development, number 7:
8 "Manitobans should think globally when
9 acting locally, recognizing that there
10 is economic, ecological and social
11 interdependence among provinces and
12 nations and working cooperatively with
13 Canada and internationally to
14 integrate economic, environmental,
15 human health and social factors in
16 decision-making while developing
17 comprehensive and equitable solutions
18 to problems."
19 And that's the Manitoba Principles of Sustainable
20 Development.
21 Number 13:
22 "Recognize there are no political and
23 jurisdictional boundaries to our
24 environment, and that there is
25 ecological interdependence among
2342
1 provinces and nations."
2 So, we have on paper, we recognize
3 that we have a global responsibility,
4 socially and environmentally. It is
5 my position that we have to take steps
6 to address this 2 billion people
7 shortfall.
8 So, we have these words on paper and
9 then we have proposed actions. Manitoba and
10 Manitoba Hydro and NCN is prepared to invest 800
11 million to provide 200 megawatts of electricity,
12 initially for export purposes, as I stated. There
13 is no indication what the end use of this
14 electricity will be.
15 If I remember correctly, from the
16 environmental impact statements in needs and
17 alternatives, that 200 megawatts will provide
18 power for, I think, 10,000 people. I may be
19 wrong, but I thought that was the number -- 50
20 people per megawatt. 2 billion people, times 800
21 million came out to $160 billion to provide energy
22 or electricity to all these people. It seems
23 pretty outrageous.
24 What is this electricity going to be
25 used for? Export. The U.S. is the number one
2343
1 energy user per capita. Canada's energy
2 consumption is 27th worst of 29 in the
3 Organization of Economic Cooperation in
4 Development countries. Each Manitoban consumes
5 more than two and a half times the amount of --
6 the average amount of power of the OECD people.
7 On top of that, the average Canadian
8 uses 8.8 hectares of ecologically available land.
9 At 6.1 billion people, there is actually only 1.7
10 hectares of ecologically available land per
11 person, less than one-fifth used by the average
12 Canadian.
13 Adding 200 megawatts simply gives
14 North America more of what we already have or has,
15 which is electricity and lots of it. When we do
16 so, we will widen -- not lessen -- the gap between
17 North America and developing countries. Providing
18 us with 200 megawatts of power is not going to do
19 anything for these 2 billion people.
20 There has actually been a word or
21 words put to what this gap is between the stated
22 principles of sustainable developments and
23 proposed actions. A recent book, 2003, has given
24 a name to this phenomenon and it is called the
25 "Integrity Gap" and the quote below was from the
2344
1 early pages of that book.
2 By and large, all levels of Canadian
3 Government exhibit a willingness to identify
4 environmental challenges, rather than deny their
5 existence or minimize their importance. Once
6 problems are recognized, however, Canadian
7 policies often fail to deliver solutions or even
8 launch efforts to attain those solutions. Again,
9 we have this, words and action and the gap between
10 them.
11 Other Sustainable Development
12 Shortfalls: Another principle of sustainable
13 development for Manitoba:
14 "Today's decisions are to be balanced
15 with tomorrow's effects."
16 1994 paper from the Journal of
17 Science, 77 percent of the total water discharge
18 of the 139 largest river systems in North America,
19 Europe and former USSR have been strongly or
20 moderately impacted by the fragmentation of the
21 river channels, by dams and water regulation
22 resulting from reservoir operation, inter-basin
23 transfer and irrigation.
24 "Today's decisions are to be balanced
25 with tomorrow's effects" as I ask, What are we
2345
1 leaving our children? I look at the picture of
2 the falls -- I forget the -- I am not going to
3 pronounce it because I will embarrass myself. But
4 when you look at the picture of the falls that are
5 proposed to be flooded or wrecked, what are we
6 leaving our children? We have already impacted a
7 number of rivers. And yes, the Nelson and
8 Churchill have been impacted as well, but are we
9 going to continue to make a bad situation worse?
10 What do I propose as solutions? Well,
11 it is time to lessen the gap. Number one solution
12 obviously is conservation. It is time for Canada
13 and Manitobans to stop being such energy hogs or
14 pigs, or however you wish to describe it. We
15 don't need more, we need to use less.
16 Other solutions, development and
17 improvement of alternative technologies. We are
18 prepared to invest $800,000,000 in a dam. Why
19 could we not invest $800,000,000 in improving upon
20 technologies that are out there or making new ones
21 that might benefit these 2 billion people?
22 We could make solar power better. We
23 could make wind power better. Who knows what we
24 can make better? The availability of large rivers
25 for creating hydroelectricity in many parts of the
2346
1 world is simply not available or has been used
2 already.
3 On top of that, the World Commission
4 on Dams notes that large dams and the reservoirs
5 created from them have deleterious effects on
6 people and ecosystems. So, the solution to me
7 does not seem to be to build more dams,
8 particularly in developing countries, but rather
9 try and use other technologies.
10 Again, from the World Bank report:
11 "Technologies such as solar, wind and
12 small-scale hydroelectric power are
13 often ideal in rural areas and require
14 far more systematic attention by
15 policymakers that they have hitherto
16 received."
17 Basically, World Bank is saying there are some
18 technologies out there, let's improve them and
19 they make good sense for some of these 2 billion
20 people.
21 Global Social Justice. I don't wish
22 to be blind to the needs of NCN -- and, again, I
23 am not going to pronounce it because I will just
24 embarrass myself.
25 I have been unemployed. It is a
2347
1 distressing and lonely position. I can't imagine
2 though what it must feel for a community that has
3 a majority of its people who suffer from
4 unemployment.
5 At the same time, as I have stated
6 earlier, I am asking the panel -- or I recommend
7 that this dam not be licensed.
8 So, what can we do to address some of
9 the needs of NCN? What am I proposing? My first
10 proposal is allow NCN and other Manitoba First
11 Nations to invest in existing Manitoba Hydro
12 Generating Stations. Reap some of the profits
13 from what has already been built. I am not sure
14 why that can't done.
15 Provide training, education and
16 opportunities to allow its members to participate
17 and receive benefits from conservation measures
18 and alternative technologies.
19 Rather than training to build a new
20 dam, which is going to be a one-of-a-kind, why not
21 assist NCN and its members, if they are willing or
22 wish to, in developing and improving technologies
23 that are out there, and then perhaps we can take
24 those technologies and, yes, we will export them.
25 Will we make some money off of that? Yes. I am
2348
1 not saying we can't be entrepreneurial. But, we
2 will be able to benefit these 2 billion people
3 from Manitoba, and at the same time provide some
4 skills and an economic base to a First Nation.
5 What about tackling other
6 environmental issues? One that comes to mind --
7 and, again, I am not saying that NCN should do
8 this or must do this -- but its contaminated sites
9 for remediation. The Auditor General in 2002
10 estimated that there are 5000 contaminated sites
11 on federal lands -- that's federal lands -- in
12 Canada, with a clean-up cost of over $2 billion.
13 I think it would be nice if NCN was
14 able to develop some expertise in this and take
15 advantage of this $2 billion that is sitting out
16 there. It would be wonderful if they became
17 experts in remediation.
18 On top of that, Manitoba's State of
19 the Environment report from 1997, 876 contaminated
20 sites in Manitoba. If we were to start cleaning
21 up some of the contaminated sites, we would
22 actually be even addressing another Principle of
23 Sustainable Development of Manitoba. Manitobans
24 should endeavor to repair damage to or degradation
25 of the environment and consider the need for
2349
1 rehabilitation and reclamation in future decisions
2 and actions.
3 I want to go back to the issue of
4 conservation for a second. There was a recent
5 article for Canadian Geographic -- I can't
6 remember, but it was in the last six months. It
7 was talking about a gentleman in Canada who has
8 developed -- he has improved light emitting
9 diodes, and basically through 1 watt or 2 watts,
10 is able to -- these diodes are able to provide
11 enough light for people to read by. They
12 obviously only use 1 or 2 watts. This is the idea
13 of technology that might be possible.
14 He has found -- is in charge of a
15 foundation that is trying to put these
16 light-emitting diodes in the hands of people in
17 developing countries. These are some of the
18 things that we could be working on. These are the
19 things we could be investing $800,000,000 in, not
20 building a one-of-a-kind dam for 200 megawatts to
21 perpetuate this gap between the rich and the poor.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions?
24 Just one from me.
25 MR. KIDD: Yes.
2350
1 THE CHAIRMAN: From what I hear you
2 say, if you had your wish, you're saying no more
3 dams; is that it?
4 MR. KIDD: Yes.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: You assume that
6 Manitoba's needs for energy could be provided
7 through exploiting alternative sources?
8 MR. KIDD: I think -- do I know that
9 for sure? I am not an expert. I have read and
10 heard from both sides.
11 But, it seems wrong to me not to try,
12 not to take that 800 million and try and improve
13 ourselves, try and conserve and try and improve
14 situations for other people as well.
15 Maybe along the way, we will make 150
16 megawatts of power available in Manitoba through
17 these new technologies rather than 200, but let's
18 try some conservation and some alternative
19 technologies. Let's benefit more than just
20 Manitobans, let's benefit lots of people from it.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 MR. KIDD: Thank you.
23 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, requesting
24 to enter Mr. Kidd's brief, as OTH, which indicates
25 "other", OTH-1000.
2351
1
2 (EXHIBIT OTH-1000: Presentation
3 submitted by Mr. Kidd)
4
5 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, the next
6 group that will be presenting this evening is
7 represented by Rob Hilliard. He is from the
8 Manitoba Federation of Labour.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hilliard? While we
10 are waiting for Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Grewar, during
11 the presentations this afternoon, we took under
12 advisement a request to file as an exhibit, an
13 audio tape or a disk and we have no objection for
14 that to be filed. My hesitation was in regards to
15 the value and how these could be made accessible
16 to interested people.
17 But be that as it may, it can be filed
18 as an exhibit where we are concerned.
19 MR. GREWAR: Okay, Mr. Chairman. So,
20 I guess, logically speaking, we would indicate it
21 as -- I wonder if we would also want to confirm
22 that additional copies can be made available?
23 Over the supper hour, we were trying
24 to duplicate it and we weren't able to. So, I am
25 assuming that we can obtain duplicate copies in
2352
1 which case they could be made available.
2 Assuming that is the case, it would be
3 DRSIL-1001. I don't actually have a title for it
4 because the CD we received is not titled. So, I
5 will secure the title from the DRSIL group and get
6 that into the record for tomorrow.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: As an additional
8 comment, we don't know and we didn't ask whether
9 this was an audio tape of the whole of the -- of
10 what went on during the Winnipeg conference or
11 just a partial or one particular presentation.
12 So, we are not sure of the value of the tape.
13 MR. GREWAR: That's true, Mr.
14 Chairman. From what I understand, it is the
15 entire conference. A recording of the entire
16 conference. Apparently, the quality is very good.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: But, we also assume
18 that those are available perhaps on the internet,
19 so we are not --
20 MR. GREWAR: I will make some
21 inquiries.
22
23 (EXHIBIT DRSIL-1001: Recording -
24 Hydro Development Conference -
25 Public Debate #2 & #3)
2353
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hilliard, would you
2 introduce yourself -- I think that has been done
3 and I will ask Mr. Grewar to swear you in.
4
5 ROBERT HILLIARD: Sworn
6
7 MR. HILLIARD: The Manitoba Federation
8 of Labour is pleased to present the Clean
9 Environment Commission hearing without views and
10 policies as they relate to the proposed Wuskwatim
11 generating station and transmission project.
12 For those of you who may not be
13 familiar with the MFL, we are the largest central
14 labour body in Manitoba, representing more than
15 95,000 union members in both the public and
16 private sectors.
17 We support the proposed Waskwatim
18 project for the economic benefits it offers all
19 Manitobans and, in particular, to those living in
20 the north. Major developments like the Wuskwatim
21 generating station and transmission project offer
22 an unprecedented level of training opportunities
23 and jobs for northern Aboriginal people. The
24 number one issue facing northern Aboriginal people
25 is poverty and the lack of opportunities to
2354
1 overcome it.
2 We have been working to address these
3 and other issues with the establishment of the MFL
4 Aboriginal Workers Caucus in 1995. This was
5 established, together with the workers of Colour
6 Caucus, in recognition of the needs of workers in
7 these areas to have a structure to discuss issues
8 of interest and to develop strategies to meet
9 their needs.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hilliard, I am
11 asked that maybe you should slow down, please.
12 MR. HILLIARD: I beg your pardon. How
13 many minutes do I have?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You have plenty.
15 MR. HILLIARD: These two caucuses are
16 represented on the MFL executive counsel by two
17 vice-presidents. By increasing work and training
18 opportunities, we are addressing the wider issue
19 of poverty in northern communities. Northern
20 Manitoba Aboriginal families are over represented
21 in our poverty statistics and gaining the
22 opportunity to acquire good paying jobs is the
23 best route out of poverty for most people.
24 Poor families include poor children.
25 Our future begins with our children and too many
2355
1 are locked in the hard scramble existence that
2 poverty involves. Projects like Wuskwatim, which
3 can generate long-term economic opportunities for
4 employment can help break the cycle by giving our
5 children an opportunity to focus beyond their
6 immediate cycle for survival. The drive and
7 determination to do well in school and make plans
8 for a post-graduation career can only take place
9 where there is hope of gaining a good job that
10 pays a living wage.
11 This point is not lost on Aboriginal
12 leaders who want to offer their fast-growing young
13 generation the prospect of a bright future.
14 With this in mind the environmental
15 impact statements developed by the Nisichawayasihk
16 Cree Nation and Manitoba Hydro have considered not
17 Wuskwatim's impact on the environment, but also
18 the effects on people, including employment and
19 training opportunities.
20 Jobs associated with construction
21 projects are good paying jobs that provide real
22 opportunities for an improved standard of living.
23 In addition, the skills that are
24 required on these projects can only be utilized in
25 northern communities for residential -- can also
2356
1 be utilized in northern communities for
2 residential house building as well as for other
3 community developments.
4 The future of construction jobs in
5 Manitoba is also promising. There is potential
6 for additional Hydro development projects
7 including Conawapa and Gull/Keeyask, as well as
8 projects such as the Manitoba Nunavut road which
9 is now being studied.
10 There are also large-scale projects
11 being planned in southern Manitoba, such as the
12 Winnipeg Floodway Expansion project, the
13 establishment of a new Manitoba Hydro head office
14 building in downtown Winnipeg and the development
15 of a new head office building for Credit Union
16 Central, also in downtown Winnipeg. The demand
17 for skilled construction workers in Manitoba will
18 be growing and future employment prospects look
19 good.
20 The Manitoba Labour Movement has
21 embarked on several initiatives in recent years to
22 train and upgrade skills for residents of northern
23 remote communities. Both the Carpenters' Union
24 Training Institute and the International
25 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Training
2357
1 Institute have conducted programs in Split Lake to
2 develop apprentices in their respective trades.
3 The MFL paid the travel and accommodation costs
4 for one of these apprentices to compete in the
5 annual provincial apprenticeship competition,
6 sponsored by Skills Manitoba. The unions involved
7 in these projects have gained valuable experience
8 in northern issues and joint efforts benefited
9 both labour and norther communities.
10 The jobs created by Wuskwatim will be
11 mostly unionized jobs through the Burntwood Nelson
12 agreement between Hydro Projects Management
13 Association and the Allied Hydro Council, which is
14 made up of unions in the Manitoba Building Trades
15 Council who generally work on hydro projects.
16 The Burntwood Nelson agreement was
17 first negotiated about 30 years ago. It exceeds
18 the basics provided for by the Construction
19 Industry Wages Act and is now being renegotiated
20 as part of the planning for the Wuskwatim project
21 development.
22 These unionized jobs will pay a real
23 living wage to construction workers on the project
24 and offer tremendous long-term opportunities for
25 northern Aboriginal people to acquire training and
2358
1 skills for the anticipated increase in the
2 construction activity in the region over the next
3 ten years and beyond.
4 The Wuskwatim generation project would
5 be constructed over six years in two stages.
6 Stage one involves the construction of the
7 infrastructure, while stage two involves
8 construction of the major works.
9 In the first two years of
10 construction, there will be close to 100 jobs
11 created. Many of these jobs will be in
12 non-designated trades and construction services,
13 such as labourers, equipment operators, vehicle
14 drivers, equipment serviceman, catering and
15 clerical staff.
16 In the remaining four years,
17 designated trades, especially journeyman,
18 carpenters, as well as electricians, plumbers,
19 pipe fitters, cement masons and iron workers will
20 make up the bulk of the workforce.
21 We are especially pleased that
22 apprenticeships will also be available over the
23 six-year construction period, with Aboriginal
24 people being given priority for placements.
25 Apprentices will first receive their training in
2359
1 the classroom and have at least five years of work
2 experience under the guidance of trained and
3 qualified journeyed trades persons.
4 Training Aboriginal people to take
5 advantage of these opportunities is already
6 underway. Over $38 million has already been
7 committed to training NCN members and other
8 Aboriginal people in preparation for Wuskwatim.
9 The training also includes the life skills
10 component to prepare the newly trained workers for
11 the challenges employment will create.
12 We are also pleased to see that
13 Workplace Health and Safety will be given a high
14 priority on the Wuskwatim project. The recent
15 provincial review of the Workplace Safety and
16 Health Act identified young workers, new entrants
17 to the work force and workers who changed jobs as
18 being especially at risk of work-place injuries
19 and deaths. Because of their lack of experience
20 and inadequate training, these workers make up a
21 disproportionate percentage of the injured workers
22 statistics at the Workers' Compensation Board.
23 The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation/Inter
24 Group Consultants group has been established to
25 identify and find solutions to the unique
2360
1 occupational health and safety issues associated
2 with construction projects in northern Aboriginal
3 communities. Preparing new construction workers
4 to identify hazards and to eliminate or control
5 those hazards is a learned skill that saves lives
6 and limbs.
7 The MFL has seen the benefits of such
8 efforts through the MFL Workers of Tomorrow
9 program, which this year will teach approximately
10 12,000 high school students these important
11 skills. The Workers' Compensation Board of
12 Manitoba also sees the value in this education by
13 providing funding assistance to both the Workers
14 of Tomorrow program and to the NCN/Inter Group
15 Consultants for these valuable initiatives.
16 The Manitoba Federation of Labour
17 commends Manitoba Hydro and NCN for considering
18 the needs of workers and developing the
19 construction plan and for their efforts to develop
20 a partnership that will be long and short-term
21 economic opportunities to the north.
22 Construction projects like Wuskwatim
23 offer hope to Aboriginal people that they too can
24 enjoy the benefits other Canadian workers enjoy.
25 It is only with meaningful employment
2361
1 that we can hope to break the cycle of poverty
2 that grips northern Manitoba communities and
3 addressing these issues can best be achieved with
4 large-scale economic development and jobs.
5 Wuskwatim marks the beginning of a new
6 era of developments in northern Manitoba. It is a
7 model of how northern communities can work in
8 partnership with developers like Hydro, allowing
9 them to share in the profits and opportunities
10 generated by the development.
11 This arrangement benefits all
12 Manitobans, in addition to the profits Manitoba
13 will generate from a secure and stable supply of
14 power that meets our needs well into the future.
15 Thank you very much.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the
17 panel? Questions on behalf of anyone in the room?
18 Yes, Ms. Whelan Enns.
19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. Just a
20 quick question, Mr. Hilliard.
21 We sometimes find that we are only
22 talking about the generation station, so I wanted
23 to ask you whether your presentation and your
24 comments in terms of training and other programs
25 also apply to the transmission system
2362
1 construction? There are three segments of
2 transmission lines in the proposal.
3 MR. HILLIARD: I didn't address the
4 transmission line specifically. I was talking
5 about the overall training project, so I didn't
6 discuss the transmission line.
7 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Okay, thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Dysart.
9 MR. DYSART: Good evening, Mr.
10 Hilliard. I have a number of questions, but I
11 just received your presentation, so please bear
12 with me.
13 Could you describe the capacity you
14 represent the Manitoba Federation of Labour?
15 MR. HILLIARD: If you mean how many
16 workers we represent, it is 95,000 unionized
17 workers in the province.
18 MR. DYSART: I mean your capacity --
19 MR. HILLIARD: What is my title? I am
20 the president of the Federation of Labour. It is
21 an elected position.
22 MR. DYSART: Just bear with me, since
23 we just received this.
24 You made some statements in regard to
25 the environmental impact statements that have been
2363
1 developed. The question of the week seems to be
2 have you read the ten linear feet of
3 documentation?
4 MR. HILLIARD: I have confined our
5 presentation to the training needs and the worker
6 side of it. I will let others address the
7 environmental -- other sides of the environmental
8 impact. I have only talked about the
9 socioeconomic sides and that's what I confined my
10 remarks to.
11 MR. DYSART: I will remind you here
12 and I will just read from your presentation:
13 "With this in mind, the environmental
14 impact statements developed by
15 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and
16 Manitoba Hydro have considered not
17 only Waskwatim's impact on the
18 environment, but also the effects on
19 people, including employment and
20 training opportunities."
21 MR. HILLIARD: That's what we
22 addressed.
23 MR. DYSART: So, in answer to my
24 earlier question you haven't read --
25 MR. HILLIARD: I haven't read the
2364
1 whole document because it wasn't germane to what
2 we were addressing.
3 MR. DYSART: I see. In your next
4 statements regarding the skills acquired through
5 the training and the jobs, you say that these
6 skills can be utilized in projects to address,
7 say, housing in northern communities. Where do
8 you propose the funding would come from to --
9 develop these programs?
10 MR. HILLIARD: I didn't address
11 whether or not there was money to do all those
12 things. I talked about the skills.
13 The reason I said what I said is I did
14 have some involvement in the past on an initiative
15 called the Aboriginal Apprenticeship Training
16 Initiative. It wasn't something that,
17 unfortunately, bore a lot of fruit, but it was
18 something that we as an organization supported
19 wholeheartedly and it was designed to address
20 housing needs in remote communities.
21 My understanding was that there was
22 some funding inconsistencies that didn't allow the
23 project to continue. However, the skills are
24 clearly needed and it is also needed for
25 residential building house.
2365
1 So, what our comments were is that
2 some of those skills get developed on those
3 projects and they have other applications as well
4 on the projects.
5 MR. DYSART: Aboriginal Apprenticeship
6 Training, I think it used to be referred to as
7 ALLI?
8 MR. HILLIARD: A-A-T-I.
9 MR. DYSART: I am familiar with that.
10 I am wondering if the Manitoba Labour
11 Federation is involved in the Burntwood Nelson
12 agreements currently being negotiated?
13 MR. HILLIARD: We are indirectly
14 involved, in that several of our member unions are
15 involved. We are an umbrella organization. We
16 don't get directly involved in negotiations for
17 these things or in negotiations with any
18 employers. We are an umbrella organization, so
19 our members do.
20 MR. DYSART: Okay. You say the MFL
21 represents 95,000 union members; that's throughout
22 the province?
23 MR. HILLIARD: That's correct.
24 MR. DYSART: How many of those are
25 currently unemployed?
2366
1 MR. HILLIARD: I have no idea, but I
2 wouldn't say not very many. There are no
3 statistics like that or information that I have
4 like that.
5 At any given time, there may well be
6 some of our members who are on temporary lay-off,
7 but that is not information that we have and it
8 isn't a significant number.
9 MR. DYSART: But, knowing what I know
10 of unions, let's say, the construction area is
11 based on seasonal work?
12 MR. HILLIARD: Yes.
13 MR. DYSART: So, in fact, say a
14 carpenter is building houses, they are usually
15 built in the summer and they are usually
16 unemployed throughout the winter?
17 MR. HILLIARD: Employment levels are,
18 generally speaking, higher in the summer. That's
19 true. It is seasonal work to a large degree.
20 However, there is an increase in
21 construction activity in Manitoba right now and
22 there is a forecast for even more of an increase
23 so that the unemployment periods are getting
24 shorter. Those workers are in much more demand
25 then they have been. I mean right next door here,
2367
1 we have the arena being built, for example, that
2 is going on all winter long.
3 So, there is more construction that is
4 happening in Manitoba right now than there has
5 been in 20 years and the forecast is for even a
6 greater amount. It is one of the difficulties in
7 the construction sector, frankly, and is one of
8 the reasons why you need have this kind of a
9 training project. It is not efficient and
10 certainly government is not prepared to pay to
11 have a large number of skilled workers available
12 for the occasions when these large projects come
13 along.
14 So that there tends to be a lower,
15 semi-permanent employment level in the
16 construction sector, however when these projects
17 come along, there is a huge need for increased
18 training and there is quite a number of them
19 coming along.
20 We are told from contractors and
21 unions who are doing this and from governments
22 that there is a skill shortage in Manitoba and
23 there is a need to increase the skill base.
24 MR. DYSART: Okay. What is your
25 definition of long-term economic opportunities for
2368
1 employment -- or maybe more specifically: What is
2 your -- to give a time to long-term, what is
3 your --
4 MR. HILLIARD: Well, I guess I haven't
5 thought of defining it, but certainly more than a
6 couple years. Ten or 15 years, something like
7 that, I guess.
8 MR. DYSART: Given that, if you had
9 seen some of the documentation regarding the
10 Wuskwatim project, there is -- I can stand to be
11 corrected on this, but there will be an employment
12 boom, say the construction phase of the project is
13 only approximately four years?
14 MR. HILLIARD: Correct.
15 MR. DYSART: So, given what you just
16 say, the Wuskwatim project itself is not
17 long-term?
18 MR. HILLIARD: That may be true for
19 that project. As I said earlier on, there are an
20 awful lot of projects on the horizon around here
21 and we are told by industry that there is a need
22 to increase the number of skilled workers in this
23 province and they are all saying the same thing.
24 MR. DYSART: You made some references
25 to northern communities, Aboriginals, and the
2369
1 cycle of poverty. What expertize does a man from
2 the Manitoba Federation of Labour have or have
3 participated in, in this cycle of poverty in the
4 north?
5 MR. HILLIARD: I can't say that we
6 have officially participated in studies. What I
7 can tell you is I have been a member of a task
8 force on social assistance some years back. I did
9 tour the north as part of that task force. We did
10 make a series of recommendations to the government
11 on that task force. It was clear to us and we
12 heard -- I don't remember exactly how many remote
13 communities, but something like ten of them -- we
14 heard the same thing over and over again: High
15 levels of unemployment, lack of opportunity. It
16 was a very consistent message that we received.
17 In addition to that, in our
18 presentation I did indicate we have established an
19 Aboriginal Workers' Caucus and that Workers'
20 Caucus, in fact, was established to deal with some
21 of the issues that Aboriginal workers face: Lack
22 of opportunity, lack of training and lack of jobs
23 for that matter. That caucus has members of north
24 in it. We hear from them as well and they feed
25 into our structures that way.
2370
1 Beyond that, I didn't know that that
2 was a debatable point.
3 MR. DYSART: I was just wondering what
4 expertize MFL could --
5 MR. HILLIARD: Well, it would be that
6 area as I indicated.
7 MR. DYSART: Just so you are aware, I
8 do live in the north.
9 MR. HILLIARD: I used to live in the
10 north too.
11 MR. DYSART: Used to, okay. Thank
12 you.
13 MR. HILLIARD: You are welcome.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further
15 questions?
16 MR. McIVOR: Mr. Hilliard, Greg
17 McIvor, Trapline 18.
18 Just in addition to Mr. Dysart, you
19 mentioned that there was a lot of support for the
20 Wuskwatim project and the long-term effects. Mr.
21 Dysart mentioned that the bulk of it is going to
22 be done in the first four years.
23 Does the Manitoba Federation of Labour
24 currently have any kind of records from past
25 projects, like Limestone?
2371
1 MR. HILLIARD: Wouldn't have them in
2 our office, but if you really wanted to get them,
3 we would get them from the Allied Hydro Council
4 who are our member unions. So, we have them
5 indirectly. I can't go to a file in my office and
6 get them, but if I needed them, I would simply
7 call up the building trades and get them there.
8 MR. McIVOR: Okay, would you know how
9 many Aboriginal people survived the Limestone
10 training era?
11 MR. HILLIARD: No, I don't have it off
12 the tip of my tongue. But, if I can anticipate
13 where you're going with this, we are well-aware of
14 the fact that the well-intentioned training
15 programs that took place at Limestone didn't have
16 the delivery that everybody hoped for.
17 There were several reasons for that,
18 not the least of which was the competitive
19 tendering process, which provides cost pressures
20 to the successful bidder, so they are not
21 interested in having newly trained workers do
22 their work. They want the experienced workers do
23 their work, they want the fast workers, the
24 workers that make no mistakes to do their work.
25 That's a fault of the tendering process in the
2372
1 overall plan.
2 What I am told from our member unions
3 in the building trades is that that's a
4 recognition of a problem in the past that is now
5 being addressed in the present. So that the
6 tendering process and the project labour agreement
7 will ensure that there is proper job placement
8 after the training takes place and if there is any
9 trouble or any problems with a newly trained
10 worker who makes mistakes, that person is taken
11 off the site, retrained and sent back again,
12 rather than the contractor firing them and they
13 are gone.
14 So, there was problems in the past, I
15 freely admit there. It wasn't because there
16 wasn't good intentions, but perhaps the whole
17 thing hadn't been thought through thoroughly
18 enough. I think that Hydro and the building
19 trades unions have learned from that experience
20 and are addressing it now.
21 MR. McIVOR: Okay. In saying that,
22 Mr. Hilliard, the tendering process that is being
23 offered through the Wuskwatim project, is it
24 comparable or similar to what was offered to the
25 Limestone project?
2373
1 MR. HILLIARD: The negotiations for
2 the project labour agreement are still going on
3 right now, so it is not a done deal. I do know
4 that the building trades have that as part of
5 their negotiating position and from what I am
6 told, Hydro is not opposed to that.
7 MR. McIVOR: Maybe I will ask the
8 question in a different way.
9 MR. HILLIARD: Okay.
10 MR. McIVOR: You are familiar with the
11 process that Manitoba Hydro and NCN have discussed
12 in terms of Aboriginal procurement, for tendering?
13 MR. HILLIARD: I am aware of it, but
14 not in detail. You would have to, if you are
15 asking the detail of that, I would have to refer
16 to one of our member unions for that, but I am
17 aware that it is there.
18 MR. McIVOR: All right, because you
19 just mentioned that a lot of contractors that bid
20 on these jobs have some difficulty in meeting the
21 bottom line, which is the dollar return on
22 investment --
23 MR. HILLIARD: It is one of the
24 problems when you just go to the lowest successful
25 bidder. When you just go to the lowest bidder,
2374
1 you wind up having those other kinds of pressures
2 that work against the training objectives.
3 MR. McIVOR: So, you are familiar with
4 the Limestone training and employment agency?
5 MR. HILLIARD: I lived in the north
6 during the time and knew many people involved in
7 the project. I understand your concern about the
8 fact that many Aboriginal people didn't see it
9 through to the end and weren't successful in terms
10 of their job experience. I am aware of that, yes.
11 MR. McIVOR: Okay. So, you're aware
12 that NCN will be constructing an ATEC training
13 centre as well, which would be similar to
14 Limestone?
15 MR. HILLIARD: There wasn't a problem
16 with the training centres in Limestone. The
17 difficulty with Limestone was after the training
18 was done, there wasn't proper job placement. If
19 there was, it was too brief because there was no
20 leeway built in for workers to learn the job
21 properly. If they made a mistake, they were gone.
22 It wasn't the training that was the issue, it was
23 the transferring there and the jobs and job
24 retention that was the problem.
25 MR. McIVOR: Okay. I know Mr. Dysart
2375
1 brought up the issue of poverty and you mentioned
2 that you were on the social allowance initiative
3 that was carried out throughout the north. But,
4 you also identified hope as a -- you have this
5 thing that is going to happen up north, but I saw
6 a lot more hope in you when you were describing
7 the arena, the new Hydro building down in downtown
8 Thompson, the Credit Union Central.
9 Do you think that there would be more
10 hope in northern Manitoba if Manitoba Hydro had
11 their headquarters in Thompson?
12 MR. HILLIARD: I suppose northerners
13 would like that.
14 MR. McIVOR: I mean that's where all
15 the power is, isn't it? I am just trying to
16 clarify.
17 MR. HILLIARD: It is not a question
18 that I considered before, but I imagine if you
19 asked northerners they would say yes to the
20 question.
21 MR. McIVOR: Okay. I just wanted to
22 get some idea of what your 95,000 union members
23 are looking forward to --
24 MR. HILLIARD: Many of are in the
25 north.
2376
1 MR. McIVOR: -- to the hope that you
2 are talk about. I know there hasn't been a lot of
3 Hydro construction up there for a number of years.
4 But, I guess the training and the licencing, I
5 guess, is the process that the apprenticeships
6 will be approaching. So, you see, there will be a
7 lot of apprentices coming into Manitoba as a
8 result of a four-year construction --
9 MR. HILLIARD: Yes.
10 MR. McIVOR: -- process to build, if
11 there are no more dams, houses in the community?
12 MR. HILLIARD: If you have trained
13 people who have recognized trades through an
14 apprenticeship program, those skills are
15 recognized across the country. That enables
16 anybody with those skills and with that
17 designation to get work in a whole lot of
18 different places and that will be up to them where
19 they work, I suppose. But, they are highly mobile
20 workers, highly skilled workers and highly sought
21 after.
22 MR. McIVOR: Okay. I am sure in your
23 travels in northern Manitoba you probably ran into
24 a lot of the folks that worked at Limestone?
25 MR. HILLIARD: Oh, I have met many,
2377
1 yes.
2 MR. McIVOR: Okay. That's all the
3 questions I have, thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Avery
5 Kinew.
6 MS. AVERY KINEW: Good evening, Mr.
7 Hilliard. We have heard some testimony before
8 that there was some concern -- maybe you were
9 referring to Limestone -- with Aboriginal people
10 being last hired and first fired. I wonder from
11 an union's perspective how that will be prevented?
12 You mentioned a few things, but if you want to go
13 into more detail?
14 MR. HILLIARD: It is prevented in a
15 number of ways. It starts off with cross-cultural
16 training, which includes contractors and other
17 workers as well as Aboriginal workers. It
18 includes monitoring of the trained workers on the
19 new jobs and how they are doing, getting reports
20 back from contractors. If contractors report
21 problems, those workers come back off the site,
22 get trained, the problem gets fixed and they get
23 sent back again.
24 MS. AVERY KINEW: Who is in charge of
25 that?
2378
1 MR. HILLIARD: It is part of the
2 overall project labour agreement between the
3 unions and the major contractors. But, it is an
4 overall plan that monitors and watches the
5 progress of things. Rather than in the past, it
6 was assumed that if you trained somebody and sent
7 them out there, things would be fine. But, there
8 are a whole lot of other pressures that happen
9 once that happens. The success, I am sure you
10 have heard other times, it didn't reach the
11 success level that people anticipated. So,
12 looking at the experience of the past, different
13 plans have been put in place to succeed
14 differently.
15 Some of the principles that I am
16 referring to have been put in place in a project
17 labour agreement in British Columbia and Vancouver
18 Island and the Vancouver Island Highway Project.
19 It involved those sorts of principles. People
20 were monitored and if there was problems, the
21 problems were addressed, retraining took place,
22 people were sent back. So, there is some track
23 record where this has already been applied and it
24 has been was successful.
25 In fact, the Vancouver Island Highway
2379
1 Project, traditionally those kind of projects,
2 without particular training targets, employ less
3 than one percent of the hours worked go to
4 Aboriginal workers. The Vancouver Island Highway
5 Project over 20 percent of the hours worked went
6 to Aboriginal workers. So, it was quite a
7 substantial difference.
8 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is there a target
9 like that that you are aware of for Waskwatim?
10 MR. HILLIARD: Like I said, the
11 negotiations are still taking place. So, there is
12 no final agreement here, and I can't comment on
13 that. Certainly, those would be objectives of
14 building trades unions.
15 MS. AVERY KINEW: That is negotiations
16 between Manitoba Hydro and the building trade
17 unions, so there is no Aboriginal people involved
18 in those negotiations?
19 MR. HILLIARD: My understanding is
20 First Nations are also involved.
21 MS. AVERY KINEW: They are?
22 MR. HILLIARD: That's what I have been
23 told, yes.
24 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay. Okay, that is
25 all for now -- are you involved in designing any
2380
1 of the training programs?
2 MR. HILLIARD: We are an umbrella
3 organization, so we don't do the hands-on stuff.
4 Our member organizations do it.
5 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay, thank you very
6 much.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you
8 Mr. Hilliard.
9 MR. HILLIARD: Thank you.
10 MR. GREWAR: Chairman, if we might
11 enter the Federation's brief: "Manitoba
12 Federation of Labour, Presentation to the Manitoba
13 Clean Environment Commission on the Proposed
14 Wuskwatim Generating Station and Transmission
15 Project", submitted by Rob Hilliard as OTH-1001.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
17
18 (EXHIBIT OTH 1001: Mr. Hilliard's
19 typed presentation to the Commission)
20
21 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, the next
22 presenter on our list person is Mr. Jim Murphy
23 representing the Operating Engineers of Manitoba.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar.
25 MR. GREWAR: Sir, could you state your
2381
1 name for the record, please?
2 MR. MURPHY: My name is Jim Murphy, I
3 am the business manager for the Operating
4 Engineers Union. We represent heavy equipment
5 operators, including crane operators and the
6 people who service and maintain those pieces of
7 equipment.
8 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Murphy, are you aware
9 that it is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly
10 mislead this Commission?
11 MR. MURPHY: I am now.
12 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell
13 only the truth in proceedings before this
14 Commission?
15 MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do.
16 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir.
17
18 JIM MURPHY: SWORN
19
20 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed,
21 Mr. Murphy.
22 MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much for
23 the opportunity to present. The Operating
24 Engineers of Manitoba are pleased to come before
25 the Clean Environment Commission to discuss the
2382
1 positive economic impact a the project like the
2 Wuskwatim Generating Station and Transmission
3 Project that would be for the people of Manitoba.
4 The Clean Environment Commission will
5 by the end of these important hearings have heard
6 many positions on the impact on the Wuskwatim dam,
7 both the positive and the negative, environmental
8 and economic. The environmental impact will
9 address how a project like the proposed Wuskwatim
10 dam might affect the environment. It is of the
11 utmost importance that the necessary research
12 relating to the project will be carefully weighed
13 and considered in the final decision making. The
14 environmental impact on the surrounding region,
15 the province, and even the country as a whole must
16 be addressed. I understand the proposed Wuskwatim
17 dam will be a low impact project involving minimal
18 flooding of less than one half square kilometre.
19 Just as the environmental impact
20 should be carefully weighed and considered, so too
21 should the economic impact of such a project. The
22 Commission has likely been made aware of a wide
23 array of facts relating to Wuskwatim and how it
24 might affect the economies of the local economy,
25 the province and even the country. Facts such as
2383
1 the creation of 7,700 person years of direct and
2 indirect construction employment on a project that
3 is expected to last approximately six years. Peak
4 annual construction work forces will be between
5 140 and 540 persons, depending on the season and
6 the construction phase, as well as the
7 construction of approximately 350 kilometres of
8 new transmission lines in Northern Manitoba.
9 In wading through some of the
10 information provided by various sources, we ask
11 the Commission to keep sight of the fact that the
12 economic impact on these communities, the province
13 and the country is felt first through individual
14 workers and their families. Individuals like Ross
15 Bonnyman and Larry Morissette, who know firsthand
16 the positive economic impact of the projects. And
17 I expected to have both Larry and Ross here
18 tonight, but unfortunately they are unable to
19 attend.
20 Bonnyman, seen in the photo as a
21 whirley crane operator in Long Spruce in 1974, was
22 working for Inco in the early '70s prior to
23 starting the major hydro projects in Manitoba.
24 His first job was at Jenpeg, the project setting
25 up a 200 person camp, and then eventually moving
2384
1 to build a 1000 person camp to house the employees
2 when the project got into full speed.
3 Ross then took a position with BA
4 Construction doing mainly dozer and loader work.
5 He then got the opportunity to work on the project
6 as an oiler and a whirley crane. From there he
7 eventually gained the experience to operate the
8 crane.
9 Ross worked primarily on the Jenpeg
10 and Long Spruce projects. With the knowledge he
11 gained, he was able to find the work stability he
12 was looking for in the crane rental business in
13 Winnipeg, and he worked in the crane rental
14 business for the last 20 years. Because of his
15 knowledge of tower cranes, he was also called upon
16 to work on the Bank of Montreal Tower which was
17 built in downtown Winnipeg. Ross is the first to
18 admit that he would never have gained the
19 knowledge that allowed for a long career if not
20 for experience on the hydro projects.
21 Larry Morissette, seen in the
22 photograph operating a whirley crane in Kettle
23 Rapids in 1971, started his working career at age
24 17 as an ironworker. In order to gain secure
25 employment, Larry took a ten-month course as a
2385
1 diesel mechanic. It was around 1968 when Larry
2 heard about the hydro projects up north and went
3 to work as a pump man. After working as a pump
4 man for a few months, Larry talked to a supervisor
5 about working on a whirley crane. In fall of
6 1968, Larry began working as a oiler on a whirley
7 crane. Larry's mechanical background helped him
8 grasp the work of a crane and before long he was
9 operating.
10 The experience Larry gained while
11 operating the crane at Kettle -- there is a photo
12 in there about the construction of Kettle -- he
13 mostly worked at Jenpeg and Limestone. This
14 enabled him to work in the crane rental business
15 in Winnipeg and on projects all over the country.
16 As recently as 1997, Larry applied those skills
17 for ten months working on the completion of the
18 Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island
19 and New Brunswick.
20 Larry believes that all of these
21 opportunities were made available to him due to
22 the extensive experience that he gained on the
23 Manitoba Hydro projects.
24 The experience positive impact that
25 the early hydro projects had on the lives of Larry
2386
1 and Ross clearly were long lasting. Long after
2 the projects were completed, the skills they
3 developed were applied in other settings, allowing
4 for a quality of life that otherwise may have not
5 been otherwise possible.
6 As we debate the future of our hydro
7 projects, the next generation of young, willing
8 workers are looking forward to benefiting from the
9 experience of being employed on such projects.
10 Persons like Roger Lungal and Clarence Anderson, I
11 would like to introduce Clarence Anderson and
12 Roger Lungal at the back, if they could stand up?
13 Both are crane operators. Roger
14 Lungal is a mobile crane apprentice and Clarence
15 Anderson is a tower crane apprentice. Roger is in
16 a photo in the hand-out, showing him working hard
17 at his level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship, in
18 conjunction with the operating engineers in Red
19 River College. He will be writing his exam to
20 obtain his Red Seal on April 6, 2004. Roger is
21 employed in the Brandon area, but looks forward to
22 the opportunities that will come from hydro
23 projects like Wuskwatim. He is eager to gain the
24 work experience that is exclusive to such
25 projects. It will be tough to match the amount of
2387
1 experience he could gain working on a hydro
2 project like this at Wuskwatim. Being able to
3 gain much experience in a relatively short period
4 of time will give Roger a leg up, enabling him to
5 secure employment as a crane operator. A project
6 like Wuskwatim could equip an individual like
7 Roger with the skill sets needed to provide for
8 himself and his family for years to come.
9 Clarence Anderson, seen signalling a
10 tower crane at the Health Sciences Centre as part
11 of his tower crane apprenticeship is another
12 Manitoban who would benefit greatly from
13 employment on a project like Wuskwatim. Clarence
14 completed some backhoe and side boom training
15 courses in 1996 and '97 through the Operating
16 Engineers Training Institute. Clarence has also
17 been active in his Aboriginal community, sitting
18 for a 2-year term as a councillor at Dauphin
19 River First Nation. He has since completed his
20 level one crane course and has worked as a tower
21 crane apprentice during the construction of the
22 True North Centre. Clarence is currently working
23 as a tower crane apprentice at the Critical
24 Services Redevelopment Project at the Health
25 Sciences Centre. He feels that the experience
2388
1 gained on projects like Wuskwatim would go a long
2 way towards helping him meet the requirements of
3 the 4500 hour apprenticeship. The time in the
4 seat on a project like Wuskwatim would solidify
5 him as an operator who possesses the skill sets
6 that are sought by many employers. There is also
7 a picture of Clarence operating the tower crane at
8 the Health Sciences Centre.
9 The Commission will also be presented
10 with facts that address the percentage of Northern
11 Aboriginal people who gain employment and
12 invaluable experience on projects like Wuskwatim.
13 An example of such figures, found on the preceding
14 page, were those tabulated during the construction
15 of the Limestone project. I won't go through the
16 figures and the percentages, but they are listed
17 from 1985 through 1992, with the corresponding
18 percentage of Aboriginal employment and northern
19 resident employment --
20 When the community is presented with
21 the facts and figures of how many Aboriginals were
22 employed in these projects in the past, or the
23 percentage projected to be employed at Wuskwatim,
24 we ask you to look beyond the statistics, look at
25 the individuals like Clarence Anderson, who would
2389
1 get benefits from the experience and the training
2 for a lifetime to come.
3 I come before the Clean Environment
4 Commission hearing not only as the business
5 manager of the Operating Engineers, but as an
6 individual who was fortunate enough to start his
7 career as a crane operator on one of the first
8 hydro projects in Manitoba. It was during the
9 construction of the Kettle Rapids Generating
10 Station that I began my career as an oiler on a
11 Bcyrus Erie 88B dragline. Working as an oiler at
12 Kettle, I continued my training as a crane
13 operator, enabling me to provide for me and my
14 family.
15 Taking into consideration our
16 experience, we felt that it is short-sighted to
17 talk about the positive impact the dam might have
18 within the limited scope of the six years that it
19 is scheduled to be under construction. We ask the
20 Clean Environment Commission to look at the
21 economic impact that may last a lifetime for those
22 people who work on the projects. Only then can
23 the true positive impact of such a project be
24 measured.
25 I thank you very much for allowing me
2390
1 to present.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murphy, on the
3 second last page, in the middle of the paragraph,
4 it is written, the required 4500 hours to complete
5 his three year tower crane operator program.
6 But you stated 4500, and presumably
7 that is the correct number, 4500, and not 4500 --
8 I don't know which is correct.
9 MR. MURPHY: It is 4500, 1500 hours a
10 year, three year apprenticeship for tower cranes.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Per year?
12 MR. MURPHY: Per year, yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions? Ms. Gaile
14 Whelan Enns.
15 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I just wanted to ask
16 a question about the stats that are from
17 Limestone. The chart appears to be 1985 through
18 '92?
19 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
20 MS. WHELAN ENNS: There is a
21 reference, the page before there is a reference to
22 the last paragraph to the fact of the Limestone
23 stats. I was looking at your average work force
24 in terms of Aboriginal people and the average
25 northern residents?
2391
1 MR. MURPHY: I think that is a
2 combined number then.
3 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Must be.
4 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
5 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I wanted to ask you
6 then, whether there were any stats available in
7 terms -- if you look at 1985, you have 42 percent
8 and 60 percent. There is a 15 to 20 percent
9 variance in terms of the Aboriginal people --
10 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: -- in the workforce
12 versus the northerners in the work force each
13 year. I am just a little bit curious about
14 whether the northern residents are people who
15 became northern residents for that project, or if
16 there is any information about whether they were
17 northern residents in the first place?
18 MR. MURPHY: The ones that I can speak
19 to are Ross Bonnyman, who lived in Thompson,
20 worked for Inco for years, and then went on to a
21 hydro project. As far as I understand, he was a
22 northern resident for years.
23 So I can't comment about the
24 individuals except the ones I know.
25 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Again, it is a
2392
1 question that we may not have the answer for
2 tonight.
3 I was also sort of seeing the full
4 workforce column that isn't here, and it may be
5 the difference between 60 percent and 100 percent
6 in 1985 is the people I am asking about. I just
7 wanted to pose the question. Thank you.
8 MR. MURPHY: Okay.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Seeing no
10 other questions -- I am sorry, Ms. Kathi Avery
11 Kinew.
12 MS. AVERY KINEW: Hi, Mr. Murphy,
13 thank you for bringing your colleagues tonight and
14 giving a different perspective. It is good to
15 have some case studies and people with real
16 experience.
17 I was just wondering if there is some
18 kind of proportion or ratio of experience to
19 apprentice or graduate apprentices on jobs, a
20 crane operator, for example?
21 MR. MURPHY: In our local collective
22 agreements, we require a minimum of one apprentice
23 for every four mobile cranes on a project. We
24 require, in our local agreements, a minimum of one
25 apprentice for every two tower cranes on a
2393
1 project.
2 MS. AVERY KINEW: Sorry, I don't
3 understand what that means. Who is in the crane
4 operating it? If you have four cranes, one is run
5 by an apprentice and there are three other --
6 MR. MURPHY: If you take Clarence's
7 example, he is the apprentice at the Health
8 Sciences Centre now. He would be required on the
9 ground some parts of the day with the crane,
10 hooking up the load, signalling the crane, and the
11 other part of the day he would be up in the cab
12 with the crane operator learning how to operate
13 the crane.
14 MS. AVERY KINEW: When does he have
15 the opportunity to -- how many hours do you put in
16 before --
17 MR. MURPHY: It varies. If it is very
18 busy and there is a concrete pourer, the
19 apprentice generally doesn't get a lot of time in
20 the crane that day, but when they are stripping
21 forms and when there is not a lot of heavy cycle
22 work, then the apprentice has more time in the
23 crane to actually do the work, under the
24 supervision of the operator.
25 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay. We had some
2394
1 testimony then in the agreement in Quebec that
2 there is some guarantees of certain levels of
3 jobs, but not on this one. The Wuskwatim dam is
4 going to have priority for Aboriginal people. How
5 is your union involved in that?
6 MR. MURPHY: We are part of the
7 building trades. We are, I sit at the negotiating
8 table. I am the vice-president of the Allied
9 Hydro Council, so I am sitting at the negotiating
10 table. We want to ensure that the conditions that
11 we have in our local agreements that require
12 apprentices are in those hydro project agreements.
13 That is our position.
14 MS. AVERY KINEW: So the one
15 apprentice for mobile and the other --
16 MR. MURPHY: If you look at Limestone,
17 where there was six tower cranes, there would have
18 been three apprentices, and running double shift,
19 that means there would have been six tower crane
20 apprentices. The fact is on Limestone, because we
21 didn't have that language in the agreement, there
22 were no apprentices on those tower cranes, so ...
23 MS. AVERY KINEW: You are part of --
24 the person who just testified before you, Mr.
25 Hilliard, talked about if you see the apprentices
2395
1 need more training, they would be identified.
2 This is the new approach?
3 MR. MURPHY: It is a new approach, and
4 we are working with some of the northern
5 communities to bring apprentices to the city,
6 because most of the crane rental companies are in
7 the city. We are trying to establish a process
8 where young people who are interested in being a
9 crane apprentice can come to the city, get some
10 valuable experience on that trade, and then when
11 the project starts, they will be there, they will
12 be ready, they will be registered apprentices, and
13 they will be eligible for dispatch to projects.
14 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is your union
15 involved in this hiring agency that will be set up
16 for --
17 MR. MURPHY: I think the hiring
18 agency, in the past projects the hiring agency
19 itself went to the E.I. system. That is no longer
20 in place. Something will have to replace that as
21 a job referral system. And I don't think it is
22 clear to me anyway how that is going to work.
23 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, you have --
24 between all the unions you are cooperating on
25 addressing this concern about First Nations and
2396
1 other Aboriginal people being last hired first
2 fired?
3 MR. MURPHY: We see it as a very
4 important part of our work force in the next 10 to
5 15 years, about 25 percent of the people in
6 construction could be Aboriginal people. And we
7 certainly are putting our efforts towards
8 attracting those people into training programs,
9 apprenticeship programs in our union.
10 MS. AVERY KINEW: Do you say 25
11 percent is some kind of target?
12 MR. MURPHY: No, we are saying that it
13 has been identified that in 10 to 15 years, 25
14 percent of the work force in the construction
15 industry could very well be Aboriginal. Right
16 now, I don't think they represent anywhere near
17 that figure. So, the effort will be to attract
18 individuals from those communities into the
19 apprenticeship program.
20 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay. Thank you.
21 Mr. Anderson, I imagine is from Dauphin River, not
22 Dawson River?
23 MR. MURPHY: It is Dauphin River, and
24 we made the last minute change. I think I said it
25 correctly in my presentation, but it wasn't
2397
1 changed in the hand-out. I apologize for that. I
2 apologize, Clarence.
3 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for
5 your presentation, Mr. Murphy.
6 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might
7 enter Mr. Murphy's presentation on behalf of the
8 Operating Engineers of Manitoba as Exhibit
9 OTH-1002.
10
11 (EXHIBIT OTH-1002: Mr. Murphy's
12 presentation)
13
14 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe, Mr. Grewar,
15 the next presenter is Mr. Ciekiewicz.
16 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Allan Ciekiewicz is
17 the next presenter, Mr. Chairman.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 Sir, I would like you to present
20 yourself. I know I made a brave but probably
21 brutal attempt at saying your name a while ago.
22 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: It is Ciekiewicz.
23 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Ciekiewicz, are you
24 aware that it is an offence in Manitoba to
25 knowingly mislead this Commission?
2398
1 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Yes.
2 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell
3 only the truth in proceedings before this
4 Commission?
5 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Yes.
6 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir.
7
8 ALLAN CIEKIEWICZ: SWORN
9
10 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Good evening
11 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Manitoba
12 Hydro employees, Councillor Thomas, and the
13 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, and all the members
14 of the public.
15 My name is Allan Ciekiewicz. I live
16 35 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg, and I make
17 this presentation independent of any group,
18 organization, company, et cetera.
19 My presentation as a private citizen
20 is based on my research and firsthand knowledge
21 and experience with Manitoba Hydro for the past
22 three and a half years. In my presentation I will
23 not attempt to tell the Nisichawayasihk Cree
24 Nation how to look after their people. My
25 presentation is informational, food for thought
2399
1 and hopefully consideration by the Nisichawayasihk
2 Cree Nation and the Clean Environment Commission,
3 and hopefully Manitoba Hydro.
4 Originally, I only intended -- I had
5 only intended to read the 36-page executive
6 summary of the generation and transmission
7 projects and leave it at that. However, for me,
8 the summary contained many ambiguous terms such as
9 "may be expected, or not expected, not
10 anticipated, may result, could result, estimated,
11 potential, could, agreement in principle,
12 likelihood, adverse effects." And I was convinced
13 to read more material related to the projects,
14 hence my presentation.
15 Councillor Thomas, on March 1st,
16 before the swearing in ceremony, I appreciated
17 your interpretation of the eagle feather, and my
18 presentation is one that is given in the spirit of
19 the eagle feather.
20 Paragraph D, point of clarification,
21 for those who are following this presentation with
22 copies, in several places throughout the
23 presentation you will see reference indicators
24 such as r.5. Brief explanations for these
25 references are included at the end of this
2400
1 presentation. That would be pages 12 A,B,C and D.
2 The second part of this presentation
3 contains the references. In some instances the
4 references may contain a copy of the actual
5 document referenced, or a copy of the excerpts
6 from the document, or a summary of the document,
7 or a simple calculation. All pages are numbered
8 in the lower right-hand corner.
9 Now, just veering away -- before I
10 start -- the second part of the presentation is
11 the long part which I am not doing, it is 70 pages
12 of references. They are just there for the
13 purposes of people who want to look at them to
14 check things out, they can do that.
15 So, what I am reading to you now is
16 only about 12 pages.
17 Okay. Paragraph E, my presentation
18 will focus briefly on a variety of topics
19 mentioned during these hearings. Such topics as:
20 Manitoba Hydro sustainable development
21 policy/principles; Manitoba Hydro's environmental
22 development policy; the Selkirk Thermal Generating
23 Station before and after the conversion to natural
24 gas; the National Energy Board; the Mid-continent
25 power pool, or MAPP; the augmented flow program;
2401
1 modeling; and mitigative measures.
2 I use some of the these topics to
3 illustrate actions of Manitoba Hydro that display
4 an attitude that contradicts its own principles
5 and policies. For some of my presentation I will
6 use by way of example the Selkirk Thermal
7 Generating Station to justify my comments.
8 Paragraph F -- Both Manitoba Hydro
9 sustainable development policy, for example, parts
10 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, and their environmental
11 management policy, for example parts 1, 2 and 4,
12 are contradicted by Manitoba Hydro's application,
13 or lack thereof, attitude, and interpretation of
14 mitigated measures.
15 I have read much of the material in
16 the binders related to the generation and
17 transmission projects, and in some instances found
18 very specific examples of mitigative measures that
19 have been addressed. However, I find it
20 unacceptable that in many places throughout the
21 material there is mention of an environmental
22 protection plan that will continue specific
23 mitigative measures to be completed following
24 receipt of the required environmental licence and
25 approvals. Such a statement in so comprehensive a
2402
1 set of documents is unacceptable and places the
2 validity of the application in jeopardy.
3 By example, consider the following
4 1998 general mitigative statement that existed in
5 the operating licence for the Selkirk Station in
6 1998.
7 "The licensee shall at all times carry
8 out an efficient program of general
9 housekeeping, equipment maintenance,
10 and mitigated measures so as to
11 minimize the emisson of particulate
12 matters through the stack from the
13 boiler operations."
14 That is the smoke coming out of the stack. The
15 role of the Selkirk Station was to be used as a
16 stand-by emergency station to secure power supply
17 for Manitobans during threats to Manitoba's power
18 supply. Therefore, why would Manitoba Hydro
19 ignore such an obvious mitigative measure or
20 condition of an operating licence and use the
21 coal-fired Selkirk Station as a source of
22 electricity for the export market? The answer is
23 money.
24 However, a quote from the book "As
25 Long as the Rivers Run," by James B. Waldram, sums
2403
1 up such an environmentally negative attitude of
2 Manitoba Hydro. Rosie Dumas of South Indian Lake
3 in 1974 stated that Hydro has no thought of the
4 people of South Indian Lake, only the power he can
5 get out of it. Unfortunately, 30 years later, my
6 experience with Manitoba Hydro verifies that such
7 an attitude still exists. Such attitude displayed
8 by Manitoba Hydro does not conform to its
9 environmental management policy and sustainable
10 development policy. In my opinion, it is
11 important that specific mitigative measures and
12 compensation agreements be spelled out in the
13 environmental approvals and licenses related to
14 the Wuskwatim projects.
15 As was mentioned during the hearings
16 by Mr. Wojczynski, the pollution control devices
17 of the Selkrk Station were not as efficient as the
18 pollution control devices of the Brandon coal
19 station. That factor was considered when it was
20 decided to convert the Selkirk Station to natural
21 gas. It is important to indicate to what degree
22 the coal-fired Selkirk Station pollution control
23 devices were inadequate. By comparison, for the
24 year 2003, the Brandon Station's coal unit
25 generated 639,611 megawatt hours of electricity
2404
1 and emitted -- important number here -- emitted
2 8.4 tonnes of particulate matter. The Selkirk
3 Station coal units generated, in 1998 generated
4 482,267 megawatt hours of electricity, and emitted
5 2850 tonnes of particulate matter.
6 To put this into perspective, the
7 Selkirk Station produced only three-quarters of
8 the power generated by the Brandon Station, but
9 emitted 339 times more particulate matter than the
10 Brandon Station.
11 That fact should have been enough to
12 convince anyone that the polluting Selkirk Station
13 should have been used infrequently and only as a
14 stand-by emergency station for which it was
15 intended. This does not comply with their own
16 environmental management policy and sustainable
17 development policy.
18 A note of importance, in both years,
19 1998 and 2000, the generation of electricity by
20 the Selkirk Station surpassed the expected
21 predicted worse case scenario generation of
22 450,000 megawatt hours, and there wasn't even
23 anything close to a worst case scenario to
24 consider.
25 Returning to my comments regarding the
2405
1 missing environmental protection plan for the
2 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project, it
3 is imperative that the environmental protection
4 plan be complete before any decisions,
5 recommendations are made by the Commission. When
6 Manitoba Hydro held public open house meetings to
7 promote the conversion of the Selkirk Station to
8 natural gas -- I attended open house meetings to
9 learn of the specifics of the project. The
10 problem with the public open house meetings was
11 that the report titled "Selkirk Generating Station
12 Fuel Switching Project Environmental Report" had
13 not been completed until after the public open
14 house meetings.
15 Manitoba Hydro's notification to alter
16 the Selkirk Station stated that four physical
17 alterations would take place. After reading the
18 report, it was obvious that a fifth alteration was
19 added, and that was to alter the role and mode of
20 operation of the Selkirk station. In fact, that
21 was the only definitive complete section of the
22 report. The four alterations mentioned in the
23 notification had not been finalized by the time
24 the report was completed. In my opinion, the
25 report wasn't complete.
2406
1 It is difficult to address an issue at
2 a public open house if the public is not made
3 aware of the facts. In fact, Manitoba Hydro is
4 now allowed to operate the gas-fired Selkirk
5 Station under its new rule approximately twice as
6 much as it was allowed when the station used coal,
7 thereby eliminating any reduction in greenhouse
8 gas emissions. The current licence contradicts
9 itself by stating in one section that the Selkirk
10 station will operate in its role as a back-up
11 supply to the primary hydraulic system, but be
12 available at all times to supplement the hydraulic
13 system. And just about in the same breath stating
14 that if Manitoba Hydro needs to seek replacement
15 power, then Manitoba Hydro can import cheaper
16 power than that which could be produced by the
17 Selkirk Station. That is exactly what Manitoba
18 Hydro has done in the past year. Manitoba Hydro
19 has imported cheap coal for the purposes of
20 generating electricity for the export market.
21 By example, in December 2003, Manitoba
22 Hydro exported a total of 94,224 megawatt hours of
23 electricity. At least 2697 megawatt hours of that
24 total was coal-generated while the Selkirk Station
25 remained idle. Also for December 2003, Manitoba
2407
1 Hydro imported 521,868 megawatt hours of
2 electricity from North Dakota and Minnesota while
3 the Selkirk Station remained idle. If we are
4 truly experiencing a drought condition, why did
5 the Selkirk station only run at approximately a 10
6 percent capacity factor for the year 2003? That
7 action does not comply with Manitoba Hydro's own
8 environmental management policy and sustainable
9 development policy. Had Manitoba Hydro used the
10 Selkirk station to contribute to export and import
11 situations, there would have been a reduction in
12 greenhouse gases by approximately one half when
13 compared to coal-generated electricity.
14 Manitoba Hydro must be aware of the
15 fact that if they want to be know as an
16 environmentally friendly green corporation, there
17 is a cost to having that distinction.
18 Once again, a completed environmental
19 protection planning for the Wuskwatim projects is
20 necessary. If not, the decisions and
21 recommendations of the Clean Environment
22 Commission in my opinion may be invalid.
23 Paragraph J: There was mention of the
24 Canadian National Energy Board during the
25 hearings. In December 2001, I became an
2408
1 intervenor regarding an application to the
2 National Energy Board by Manitoba Hydro to export
3 100 megawatts of electricity to Wisconsin Public
4 Service Corporation. Manitoba Hydro stated that
5 for the 100-megawatt export, no additional
6 transmission or generating facilities would be
7 required. Simultaneous to this application,
8 Manitoba Hydro started to operate the coal-fired
9 Selkirk Generating Station just in case there was
10 an emergency resulting from two faulty
11 transformers. Manitoba Hydro's definition of the
12 stand-by emergency Selkirk Station was to operate
13 it at 50 percent capacity as it required 12 hours
14 to get the station up to generating speed.
15 However, if you remember the
16 discussion regarding the Mid-continent Power Pool,
17 it is obvious that there was no need to operate
18 the Selkirk Station at 50 percent capacity just in
19 case there was an emergency, as all members of the
20 Mid-continent Power Pool are required to hold
21 specific amounts of power reserve for other
22 members to use in times of emergency.
23 For example, in September of 1996,
24 when the tornado force winds destroyed 19 high
25 voltage direct current transmission towers,
2409
1 Manitoba Hydro system, in a fraction of a second,
2 went from exporting 1500 megawatts to importing
3 about 200 megawatts immediately, and shortly
4 thereafter up to 600 to 800 megawatts.
5 Therefore, Manitoba Hydro did not have
6 to operate the polluting Selkirk Station for the
7 months of December 2001, January 2002, February
8 2002, and March 2002.
9 To add insult to injury, the
10 correspondence that I received related to the
11 application to export 100 megawatts of power
12 indicated that even if the application to export
13 100 megawatts of power was permitted that Manitoba
14 still had 300 megawatts of surplus hydro
15 generating capacity.
16 So what was the real reason that the
17 coal-burning polluting Selkirk Station operated
18 for the above mentioned months? Once again, Rosie
19 Dumas of South Indian Lake had the answer. But
20 there were other mitigative measures that Manitoba
21 Hydro could have put in place to avoid using the
22 Selkirk Station.
23 However, Manitoba Hydro may have had
24 ulterior motives for operating the Selkirk
25 Station, such as getting rid of 87,000 tonnes of
2410
1 coal before the conversion commenced.
2 Once again, such actions do not comply
3 with Manitoba Hydro's own environmental management
4 policy and sustainable development policy. It
5 makes one wonder if Manitoba Hydro intends to
6 follow their own environmental management policy
7 and sustainable development policy, or follow a
8 policy of deception?
9 Paragraph K: Mr. Wojczynski mentioned
10 the public concern over the operation of the
11 coal-fired Selkirk Station. He stated that in
12 response to allegations of the public that
13 Manitoba Hydro's studies indicated there were no
14 significant impacts as a result of the operation
15 of the coal-fired Selkirk Station.
16 One such study related to the Selkirk
17 station was titled "Air Quality Impact Assessment
18 Coal-fired Generation, September 2001." The
19 report stated that it was an update for the years
20 1993 to 2000, to address the emissions, the issue
21 of emissions while burning sub-bituminous coal.
22 One problem with that is that the
23 Selkirk Station did not always operate with
24 sub-bituminous coal. Lignite, a coal with a
25 higher ash content, was used for a large part of
2411
1 the time interval stated. The Air Quality
2 Assessment Coal-fired report also made use of the
3 results of a stack emission test that was
4 performed in February 2001, using a coal with an
5 average ash content of 5.19 percent. I am not
6 trying to mix you up with all these numbers, they
7 sort of all come together in the end.
8 The September report of 2001 indicated
9 that the downwind point of impingement of plant
10 emissions off the plant site, ground level
11 concentrations of suspended particulate matter for
12 a 24-hour period average would be 221 units. The
13 limit in the operating licence is 120. The
14 station's emission was 184 percent of the limit.
15 Now remember, the September report was
16 to allay the fears and concerns of residents by
17 reviewing the operation for the years 1993 to
18 2000. The generation records for the station
19 indicate that the average ash content of the coal
20 used for that period was 7.09. As a result, the
21 24-hour average for suspended particulate matter,
22 as indicated by the September 2001 report, is much
23 too low. A comparison of the two ash contents
24 reveals that the 24-hour average should have been
25 closer to 302 units. Even at the 50 percent
2412
1 capacity rate, the Selkirk Station would be
2 violating the 24-hour average of 120.
3 Manitoba Hydro was aware of these
4 facts, but in their wisdom chose to ignore them in
5 the limits set out in the operating licence for
6 the Selkirk Station.
7 I am sorry for repeating myself, but
8 that attitude does not comply with Manitoba
9 Hydro's own environmental management policy,
10 sustainable development policy, and the
11 application of required mitigated measures, and
12 leads me to believe that there will be problems
13 regarding mitigative measures relating to the
14 Wuskwatim projects.
15 Paragraph L: The fact that Manitoba
16 Hydro knew in September 2001, and much earlier, of
17 exceeding the 24-hour average limit but still
18 operated the coal-fired station, Selkirk Station,
19 for the months of December 2001, January,
20 February, March 2002, was an unconscionable
21 action. One example, the ash content for February
22 2002 was 7.7 percent. To add insult to injury,
23 the faulty transformers used as an excuse to
24 operate the Selkirk Station for the above
25 mentioned month were still faulty when Manitoba
2413
1 Hydro shut down the Selkirk Station in mid March
2 of 2002 for the commencement of the conversion to
3 natural gas.
4 Paragraph M: The Splash model was
5 mentioned at one or two points during the early
6 days of the hearings. A modeling program may be a
7 fine indicator of outcomes, but it is only as
8 valid an indicator as the inputs entered into the
9 program. My example of the September 2001 report
10 regarding ash content mentioned above is
11 sufficient to justify that statement, or to be a
12 little more bold, one could use a modeling program
13 to dictate ultimate outcomes.
14 Paragraph N: On more than one
15 occasion it was mentioned that the electricity
16 generated in Manitoba would be used to replace
17 thermal generating stations used by their export
18 customers. A page from Manitoba Hydro's website
19 during the year 2001 boasted that same scenario.
20 The problem is that Manitoba Hydro was making that
21 statement while showering inappropriately the
22 environment surrounding the coal-fired Selkirk
23 Station with thousands of tonnes of particulate
24 matter. Where does such an action fit in with
25 Manitoba Hydro's management policy and sustainable
2414
1 development policy, and the application of
2 required mitigative measures? It doesn't. But it
3 raises doubts regarding the Wuskwatim projects.
4 Paragraph O: There was a discussion
5 of the augmented flow program during the early
6 days of the hearings. If the productivity of the
7 Wuskwatim Generation Project is in any way
8 dependent on the augmented flow program, it should
9 be incorporated into the required environmental
10 approvals and licenses. That way everyone knows
11 what the situation will be in the future.
12 Paragraph P: As I stated at the
13 beginning of my presentation, I have used my
14 firsthand experience and knowledge relating to
15 encounters with Manitoba Hydro for the past three
16 and a half years. It should indicate to anyone
17 that you must be cautious when dealing with
18 Manitoba Hydro. Once again I use a quote from the
19 book "As Long as the Rivers Run" by James B.
20 Waldram to illustrate this point. From chapter 5,
21 regarding South Indian Lake, lawyer Yude Henteleff
22 who represented South Indian Lake residents
23 stated:
24 "The fact is they, Hydro, were totally
25 ill-prepared. They approached the
2415
1 situation with considerable arrogance,
2 and felt that anybody who questioned
3 them was, in effect, questioning God.
4 Somehow they were touched by
5 infallibility in terms of decisions.
6 Who has the temerity to question
7 them?"
8 I would like to believe that
9 approximately 30 years later that such an attitude
10 has changed, but my experience does not lead me to
11 that conclusion.
12 Paragraph Q: In closing I make these
13 final comments. To Manitoba Hydro, my
14 presentation is quite clear and there is nothing
15 to add at this point in time. To the Members of
16 the Clean Environment Commission, you have the
17 difficult task of making recommendations to the
18 government knowing full well that the government
19 may disregard those recommendations. Your
20 recommendations must be based on knowledge of all
21 pertinent documents. If necessary, the Commission
22 must insist and demand full disclosure of all
23 completed documents that the Commission deems to
24 be necessary to make valid recommendations. To
25 Councillor Thomas and the Nisichawayasihk Cree
2416
1 Nation, if your people approve these projects, you
2 will need the strength of the eagle feather to
3 give you the power to soar above your lands and
4 give you sight to oversee projects like the
5 Wuskwatim projects in order to realize your vision
6 for your people and others. Remember the comments
7 of Rosie Dumas and Yude Henteleff.
8 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for
9 the opportunity.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Questions? Ms. Whelan
11 Enns.
12 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you for your
13 presentation.
14 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: You are welcome.
15 MS. WHELAN ENNS: It is a long day and
16 I didn't mark this on the page, but what I wanted
17 to ask you is whether you have done any research
18 in terms of the stages of alteration on what would
19 have been the existing environmental licence for
20 the Selkirk Station? To add to the question then,
21 if you have been dealing with this sequence, as
22 you have described, at what stages in the changes
23 to the licence to the Selkirk Station was there
24 public notification and review, and were there any
25 alterations to the licence along the way without
2417
1 public notification?
2 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: The first alteration
3 I am probably aware of is when the people in the
4 area of the Selkirk Station were sort of up in
5 arms about the fact that the station was operating
6 as frequently as it was, and there were questions
7 about horse health, and I guess human health and
8 other concerns. They actually met at Manitoba
9 Hydro, I think this was in 2000, September or
10 October 2000, they met with the CEO and members of
11 Manitoba Hydro. And they cut -- they reduced the
12 power they were producing at that time. I forget
13 what they were reducing at that time, but they
14 were reducing it by 25 percent, I am not sure, but
15 they said they would reduce it.
16 Just so you know where I am coming
17 from, ma'am, the people that I live by, their path
18 was to say, okay, we don't like the fact this
19 smoke is coming down on us, probably because there
20 is so much of it. Every time I read the licence,
21 I would get kind of put off, because I looked at
22 it as a legal matter. They were not using
23 mitigative measures, and I still believe that.
24 Like I believe that from 2000, I
25 believe that was licence 1645 I think, R, and
2418
1 there was a double R, then there was a triple R,
2 and then there was quadruple R. So there were a
3 lot of licences, and the last one deals with the
4 natural gas one.
5 Like I said, even the natural gas, if
6 they are really environmentally friendly, it
7 doesn't make sense to have written right into the
8 licence that you can use this -- you can use this
9 station twice as much as you did when you used
10 coal, pick up a greenhouse award from the Canadian
11 Council of Environmental Ministers for switching
12 the Selkirk Station over to natural gas, and
13 making it sound like it is an environmentally
14 friendly thing, when they can produce just as much
15 carbon dioxide gas as they would if they used the
16 coal-fired station as they were supposed to. That
17 doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I wrote to the
18 council and asked for their award back.
19 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you.
20 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: Okay.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions?
22 Seeing none. Thank you, sir.
23 MR. CIEKIEWICZ: You are welcome.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar?
25 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just if we
2419
1 might enter the submission presentation made by
2 Allan Ciekiewicz before the Clean Environment
3 Commission regarding the Wuskwatim Generation and
4 Transmission project, in the month of March, 2004,
5 OTH-1003.
6
7 (EXHIBIT OTH-1003: Presentation by
8 Allan Ciekiewicz)
9
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Grewar.
11 Are there other presenters?
12 MR. GREWAR: None registered,
13 Mr. Chairman.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, this
15 Commission will adjourn the hearings for this
16 evening until tomorrow at 10:00 o'clock. We will
17 reconvene at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow. Thank you.
18
19 (ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.)
20
21
22
23
24